IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


^:^ 


%\< 


,5r 


4^ 


^ 


1.0 


1.1 


1.25 


IttlM    |25 


us 


■luu 

14. 116 


6" 


!_• 


iC 


<^^ 


V 


^v 


<^ 


^^v 


SdffliceR 
Corporation 


23  WIST  MAIN  STRIET 

WiBSTIR,N.Y.  14SM 

(716)872-4503 


O^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHIVI/ICIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microraproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notat/Notea  tachnlquaa  at  bibiiographiquaa 


Tha  Inatituta  haa  attamptad  to  obtain  tha  baat 
original  copy  availabia  for  filming.  Faaturaa  of  thia 
copy  which  may  ba  bibliographicaliy  uniqua. 
which  may  altar  any  of  tha  imagaa  in  tha 
raproduction,  or  which  may  algniflcantly  change 
the  uaual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


n 
n 

D 
D 

n 


n 


Coloured  covera/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 

Covera  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommagte 

Covera  reatorad  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurte  et/ou  pellicula 

Cover  title  miaaing/ 

La  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  mapa/ 

Cartea  g^ographiquea  en  couleur 

Coloured  inic  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

Coloured  plataa  and/or  iilustrationa/ 
Planchea  et/ou  iliuatrationa  en  couleur 

Bound  whh  other  material/ 
Reli^  avac  d'autrea  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cauae  ahadowa  or  diatortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  aarr^e  peut  cauaar  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
diatortion  le  long  de  la  marge  IntArleure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  reatoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  aa  peut  que  certainas  pagea  blanchea  ajout^ea 
lore  d'une  reatauration  apparaiaaent  dana  le  texte, 
mala,  lorsque  cela  Atait  poaaibla,  cea  pagea  n'ont 
paa  itA  filmtea. 


L'Inatltut  a  microfiimA  le  mellleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lul  a  At*  poaaibla  de  aa  procurer.  Lea  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibllographique,  qui  peuvent  modi^<ar 
une  image  reprodulte,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  un^s 
modification  dan'i  la  mAthoda  normaia  de  fllmage 
aont  indiquto  ci-  deaaoua. 


r~n  Coloured  pagea/ 


Pagea  de  couleur 

Pagea  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagtea 

Pagea  restored  and/oi 

Pagea  reataurAea  et/ou  peliiculAea 

0   Pagea  diacolourad,  atained  or  foxed/ 
Pagea  dicolortes,  tachatAea  ou  piqu6ea 

□   Pagea  detached/ 
Pagea  dAtachtea 


I — I    Pagea  damaged/ 

I — I   Pagea  restored  and/or  laminated/ 


r^   Showthrough/ 


n 


Tranaparence 


|~~|   Quality  of  print  variea/ 


QualitA  inigale  de  I'impreaalon 

Includaa  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplAmantaire 


Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Mition  diaponible 

Pagee  wholly  or  partially  obacurad  by  errata 
slips,  tissuea,  etc.,  have  been  ref limed  to 
enaure  tha  beat  poaaibla  image/ 
Lea  pages  totalement  ou  partlellement 
obacurciea  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  peiure, 
etc.,  ont  tt6  filmtea  A  nouvoau  de  fa^on  h 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  poasible. 


Tl 
to 


Tl 

P< 
o1 

fil 


O 

bi 
th 
si 
oi 
fit 
ai 

OI 


Tl 

St 

Tl 
w 

M 
dl 
ei 
bi 
ril 
re 
m 


EZl 


Additional  commenta:/ 
Commentairea  aupplimantairaa: 


Various  pagingt. 


Thia  item  la  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  eat  fllmA  au  taux  de  rMuctlon  indiqui  ci-deaaoua. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

28X 

30X 

>/ 

3 

12X 


18X 


20X 


a4x 


32X 


The  copy  film«d  hers  h«s  b««n  r«procluc«d  thanks 
to  tho  gonorosity  of: 

Library  of  tha  Public 
Archivos  of  Canada 


L'axampiaira  film*  tut  raproduit  grica  A  la 
ginAroait*  da: 

Lb  bibliothiqua  dcs  Archivas 
pubiiquas  dr<  Canada 


Tha  imagaa  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  baat  quality 
poaalbia  conaidaring  th?  condition  and  lagibility 
of  tha  original  copy  anci  tn  Icaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  spacif icationa. 


Las  imagas  suivantas  ont  At*  raproduitas  avac  la 
plus  grand  soin,  compta  tanu  da  la  condition  at 
da  la  nattat*  da  Taxampiaira  filmA,  at  an 
conformity  avac  las  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmaga. 


Original  copias  In  printad  papar  covara  ara  filmad 
baginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  anding  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impraa- 
sion,  or  tha  bacic  covar  whan  appropriata.  Ail 
othar  original  copiaa  ara  filmad  baginning  on  tha 
first  paga  wKh  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impraa- 
sion,  and  anding  on  tha  last  paga  with  a  printad 
or  illuatratad  impraaaion^ 


Laa  axamplairaa  originaux  dont  la  couvartura  an 
papiar  aat  ImprimAa  sont  filmte  an  commandant 
par  la  pramiar  plat  at  an  tarminant  soit  par  la 
darniAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illuatration,  aoit  par  la  sacond 
plat,  aalon  la  caa.  Toua  las  autraa  axamplairaa 
originaux  sont  filmte  an  commandant  par  la 
pramlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illuatration  at  an  tarminant  par 
la  darniAra  paga  qui  cjmporta  una  talla 
amprainta. 


Tha  last  racordad  frama  on  aach  microficha 
ahall  contain  tha  symbol  — ^-  (moaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  tha  aymbol  V  (moaning  "END"), 
whichavar  applias. 


Un  daa  aymbolaa  suivants  apparaftra  sur  la 
darnlAra  imaga  da  chaqua  microficha,  salon  la 
caa:  la  aymbola  — ^  signifia  "A  SUIVRE".  la 
symbola  V  signifia  "FIN". 


IMapa,  plataa,  charta,  ate,  may  ba  filmad  at 
diffarant  raduction  ratioa.  Thosa  too  larga  to  ba 
antiraly  includad  in  ona  axpoaura  ara  filmad 
baginning  in  tha  uppar  laft  hand  cornar,  laft  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  aa  many  framas  aa 
raquirad.  Tha  following  diagrama  illuatrata  tha 
mathod: 


Laa  cartaa,  planchas,  tablaaux,  ate,  pauvant  Atra 
filmAa  A  daa  taux  da  rAduction  diff Aranta. 
Loraqua  la  documant  aat  trap  grand  pour  Atra 
raproduit  an  un  saui  clichA,  il  aat  filmA  A  partir 
da  I'angia  supAriaur  gaucha,  da  gaucha  A  droita, 
at  da  haut  an  baa,  an  pranant  la  nombra 
d'imagaa  nAcassaira.  Laa  diagrammas  suivants 
illustrant  la  mAthoda. 


1  2  3 


32X 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ENQUIEY 


INTO  THE 


VALIDITY  OF  THE  BRITISH  CLAIM 


TO 


A  RIGHT  OF  VISITATION  AND  SEARCH 


or 


Slmertcacn  Wfsstls 


SUSPECTED  TO  BE  ENGAGED  IN  THE 


AFRICAN  SLAVE-TRADE. 


BY  HENRY  WHEATON,  LL.D. 


UIMIBTER  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AT  THE  COURT  OF  BERLIN — AUTHOR 
OF  "  ELEMENTS  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW." 


PHILADELPHIA : 

LEA  &  BLANCHARD. 


1842. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1842,  by  LEA  & 
BLANCHARD,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Eastern 
District  of  Pennsylvania. 


GRIGGS    ic.   CO.,   PRINTEKS. 


■3 


ENaUIRT. 

fyc.  Src 


lern 


W 


The  message  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  Congress  at  the  opening  of  the  present 
session,  states  in  very  brief,  but  significant  and 
decided  terms,  the  ground  taken  by  the  American 
Government  upon  the  question  of  the  right  of 
visitation  and  search  recently  claimed  and  exer- 
cised by  Great  Britain  in  the  African  seas,  and 
other  parts  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  which  can  leave 
no  doubt  as  to  the  fixed  determination  of  the  cabi- 
net of  Washington  upon  that  important  subject.  It 
is  hoped  that  the  other  matters  in  dispute  between 
the  British  and  American  Governments  may  admit 
of  a  pacific  and  satisfactory  adjustment,  consistently 
with  the  honour  and  essential  interests  of  both  na- 
tions.*   But  the  question  as  to  the  exercise  of  the 

*  The  author  of  these  sheets  has  recently  published  in  the 
"  Revue  Etrangere  et  Fran9aise  de  Legislation,'*  &c.  an  essay 
upon  the  incidental  question  of  the  criminal  prosecution  com- 
menced against  Alexander  M'l/eod  in  the  American  courts,  in 
which  the  main  question  relating  to  the  destruction  of  the  steam 
vessel,  the  Caroline,  by  order  of  the  British  authorities,  in 
Upper  Canada,  is  also  partially  examined.  This  latter  point  is 
understood  to  be  included  among  the  objects  of  Lord  Ashburton's 
mission. 


right  of  visitation  and  search,  in  time  of  peace,  upon 
the  high  seas,  in  respect  to  the  merchant-vessels  of 
a  nation,  which  has  not  expressly  assented  to  its 
exercise,  we  fear  may  be  attended  with  more  diffi- 
culties, both  intrinsic,  and  those  arising  from  pecu- 
liar circumstances  in  the  mutual  relations  of  the 
two  countries.  We  say  the  "  question  of  the  right 
of  visitation  and  search,  in  time  of  peace  upon  the 
high  seas,  in  respect  to  the  vessels  of  a  nation  which 
has  not  expressly  assented  to  its  exercise ;"  for  such, 
we  shall  hereafter  endeavour  to  show,  is  the  true 
nature  of  the  pretension  set  up  by  Great  Britain 
on  this  occasion.  It  becomes,  however,  indispensa- 
bly necessary,  before  entering  on  the  question  as 
to  the  validity  of  this  pretension,  to  endeavour  to 
dispel  the  thick  cloud  of  prejudice  which  seems  to 
rest  on  the  minds  of  many  sincere  friends  of  hu- 
manity in  Europe  as  to  the  principles  asserted,  and 
the  conduct  observed  by  the  North  American  nation 
and  its  rulers  in  respect  to  the  African  slave-trade. 
Summoned,  as  it  were,  at  the  bar  of  nations,  to 
answer  the  accusation  of  refusing  to  sacrifice  what 
they  deem  their  just  maritime  rights,  for  the  al- 
leged purpose  of  suppressing  a  traffic  so  justly  stig- 
matized by  every  civilized  and  Christian  people  as  a 
crime  against  humanity, — the  people  and  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  have  a  just  claim  to  be 
heard  before  they  are  finally  condemned  by  the 
public  opinion  of  the  world  on  so  grave  a  charge. 
Had  the  allegation  of  insincerity  as  to  their  desire 
to  contribute  by  every  means  in  their  power,  con- 
sistently with  the  independence  and  honour  of  their 


# 


1 


national  flag,  towards  the  final  and  complete  sup- 
pression of  this  odious  traffic, — in  the  guilt  of  which 
both  Europe  and  America  too  long  participated, 
though  (as  we  shall  also  attempt  to  show)  in  un- 
equal proportions, — had,  we  say,  this  allegation  been 
preferred  merely  through  the  British  party-press, 
the  writer  of  these  sheets  would  not  have  deemed 
it  either  necessary  or  proper  to  take  up  his  pen  in 
order  to  vindicate  the  character  of  his  country  from 
such  a  foul  stigma.  But  as  the  same  allegation  has 
been  more  than  insinuated  in  public  documents,  to 
which  are  affixed  the  si<Tnatures  of  statesmen  for 
whose  character  he  feels  the  most  unfeigned  re- 
spect, and  in  periodical  works,  understood  to  repre- 
sent the  views  of  at  least  one  of  the  great  parties 
which  divide  the  British  State, — he  cannot  forbear 
from  endeavouring  to  repel  what  he  must  regard 
as  an  unjust  and  groundless  imputation.  This  be- 
comes more  especially  necessary  with  respect  to 
the  four  great  European  Towers,  who  have  recently 
acceded  to  the  compact  proposed  by  Great  Britain 
for  the  alleged  purpose  of  suppressing  the  slave- 
trade,  and  with  whom  the  United  States  have  ever 
been,  and  still  desire  to  remain,  on  terms  of  the 
strictest  friendship.  The  maritime  resources  of 
America  are  not  for  herself  alone :  they  are  for  all 
who  have  a  common  interest  in  the  free  navigation 
of  the  seas,  and  the  general  balance  of  maritime 
power.  When  these  resources  shall  be  more  com- 
pletely developed,  they  will,  we  trust,  be  devoted, 
not  to  any  mere  selfish  purpose,  but  to  the  support 
of  that  great  cause  common  to  every  civilized  and 


Hi 


6 

commercial  nation  possessed  of  naval  power  inferior 
to  the  greatest. 

As  the  subject  in  question  has  no  connexion  with 
the  writer's  official  duties  in  the  particular  mission 
confided  to  him,  he  will  treat  it  with  that  freedom 
which  may  become  the  citizen  of  a  free  state,  but, 
at  the  same  time,  with  all  the  deference  due  to  those 
from  whom  he  is  constrained  to  differ,  whether  offi- 
cial persons  or  others. 

In  order  to  dissipate  the  prejudices  which  have 
gathered  over  this  subject,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  revert  to  the  original  progress  of  the  traffic 
in  question,  so  far  as  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  are  both  concerned. 

The  testimony  of  authentic  history  attests  the 
notorious  facts,  that  the  African  slave-trade  was 
carried  on  by  the  British  nation  for  more  than 
two  centuries  under  the  patronage  of  its  Govern- 
ment, and  protected  by  charters  of  monopoly  and 
public  treaties,  not  for  the  supply  of  their  own 
colonies  merely,  but  those  of  France  and  Spain, 
before  even  the  slightest  effort  had  been  made 
to  awaken  the  public  mind  to  a  sense  of  its  enor- 
mous iniquity.  Under  the  first  Stuart  kings  of 
England,  charters  were  granted  incorporating  joint- 
stock  companies,  endowed  with  the  exclusive  privi- 
lege of  carrying  on  trade  with  Africa.  The  ope- 
rations of  these  companies  were  sustained  by  all 
the  power  and  patronage  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment, both  in  legislative  measures  and  diplomatic 
acts.  The  memorable  treaty  of  Utrecht,  1713, — 
by  which  the  Spanish  succession-war  was  termi- 


'ifi 


It 


nated,  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe  conftrmed, 
and  the  maritime  law  of  nations  definitively  set- 
tled,— so  far  as  depending  on  conventions,  granted 
"to  her  Britannic  Majesty,  and  to  the  company 
cf  her  subjects  established  for  that  purpose  (the 
South  Sea  Company,)  as  well  the  subjects  of 
Spain,  as  all  others  being  excluded,  the  contract 
for  introducing  negroes  into  several  parts  of  the 
dominions  of  his  Catholic  Majesty  in  America 
(commonly  called  El  facto  de  elAssiento  de  negros,) 
at  the  rate  of  4800  negroes  yearly,  for  the  space  of 
thirty  years  successively."* 

In  the  debate  which  took  place  in  the  House  of 
Commons  on  the  16th  of  June,  1815,  relating  to 
the  negotiations  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna  respect- 
ing this  matter.  Lord  Brougham  stated,  that  "  by 
the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  which  the  execrations  of  ages 
have  left  inadequately  censured.  Great  Britain  was 
content  to  obtain,  as  the  whole  price  of  Ramillies 
and  Blenheim,  an  additional  share  of  the  accursed 
slave-trade." 

Mr.  C.  Grant  said  in  the  House  of  Commons 
on  the  9th  February,  1818,  that  "  In  the  beginning 
of  the  last  century  we  deemed  it  a  great  advantage 
to  obtain  by  the  Assiento  contract  the  right  of  sup- 
plying with  slaves  the  possessions  of  that  very 
power  we  were  now  paying  for  abolishing  the  trade. 
During  the  negotiations  which  preceded  the  peace 


*  Treaty  of  Commerce  and  Navigation,  signed  at  Utrecht, 
1713,  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  art.  12. — (Dunont,  Tom. 
viii.  P.  ii.  p.  344.) 


8 


of  Aix-la-ChapeJle  we  higgled  for  four  years  longer 
of  this  exclusive  trade;  and  in  the  treaty  of  Madrid 
we  clung  to  the  last  remains  of  the  Assiento  con- 
tract."* 

The  principal  object,  however,  of  the  slave-trade, 
80  long  carried  on  by  Great  Britain,  was  the  supply 
of  her  own  colonies  in   North  America  and  the 
West  Indies.     The  British  settlers  in  the  colonies, 
which  now  form  the  five  southern  states  of  the 
American  union,  were  naturally  tempted  by  the 
example  of  the  West-Indian  planters  to  substitute 
for  white  servants  the  labour  of  African  slaves, 
better  fitted  by  their  physical  constitutions  to  en- 
dure the  toil  of  cultivating,  under  a  burning  sun, 
the  rich  soil  of  that  region.     The  desire  to  obtain 
an  iraple  supply  of  these  labourers  was  powerfully 
stimulated  by  the  encouragement  of  the  British 
Government,  which  sought  by  this  means,  at  once, 
to  increase  the    amount  of  colonial    produce  for 
home  consumption  and  re-exportation,  and  to  dis- 
courage the  emigration  of  its  European  subjects  to 
the  New  World,  where  they  were  but  too  much  dis- 
posed to  seek  refuge  from  the  oppression  of  the 
Restoration.     "  On  the   accession  of  Charles  II.," 
says  Davenant,  "  a  representation  being  made  to 
him  that  the  British  plantations  in  America  were 
by  degrees  advancing  to  such  a  condition  as  neces- 
sarily required  a  greater  yearly  supply  of  servants 
and  labourers  than  could  well  be  spared  from  Eng- 
land, without  the  danger  of  depopulating  his  ma- 

*  Walsh's  "  Appeal  Irom  the  Judgments  of  Great  Britain  re- 
specting the  United  States,"  second  edition,  p.  327. 


9 


m 


jesty's  native  (iominions,  his  majesty  did  (upon 
account  of  supplying  these  plantations  with  negroes) 
publicly  invito  all  his  subjects  to  the  subscription 
of  a  now  joint-stock  for  recovering  and  carrying  on 
the  trade  to  Africa."* 

The  southern  colonists  yielded  with  too  much 
facility  to  the  temptation  thus  held  out  to  them  of 
being  relieved  from  the  wasting  labour  of  the  field, 
under  a  burning  sun,  and  with  respect  to  one  par- 
ticular species  of  cultivation  (that  of  rice,)  in  a 
marshy  soil,  whose  pestilent  exhalations  are  fatal 
to  whites  ;  whilst  they  were  thus  left  with  leisure 
and  the  means  of  providing  for  their  defence  against 
the  incursion  of  a  savage  foe.f     Not  so  with  the 
settlers  of  New  England.     They  stood  less  in  need 
of  this  class  of  servants,  and  therefore,  more  readily 
listened  to  the  voice  of  conscience.     The  colony  of 
Massachusetts,  as   early  as    1645,  enacted  a  law 
prohibiting  the  buying  and  selling  of  slaves,  "  ex- 
cept those  taken  in  lawful  war,  or  reduced  to  ser- 
vitude for  their  crimes  by  a  judicial  sentence ;"  and 
these  were  to  be  allowed   "  the  same  privileges  as 
were  allowed  bj/   the  laiv  of  Moses.'"      This   pro- 
hibition, with  its  exception  conceived  in  the  spirit 
of  Puritanism,  must  have  fallen  into  disuse,  since 
we  find  that  in   1703  the  legislature  of  Massachu- 
setts imposed  a  heavy  duty  on  negroes  imported 
into  that  colony.     And  in  1767  they  attempted  to 


*  Daveiiant's  Works,  vol.  v.      "Reflections  on   the   African 
Slave-Trade." 
t  Walsh's  "Appeal,"  p.  310. 


10 

establish  a  duty  equivalent  to  the  absolute  prohibi- 
tion of  the  introduction  of  slaves,  which  was  defeated 
by  the  opposition  of  the  council  appointed  by  the 
crown.     Had  the  bill  passed  the  two  branches  of 
the  legislature,  it  must  have  been  ultimately  de- 
stroyed by  the  negative  of  the  governor,  as  all  the 
royal  govenors  had  express  instructions  from  the 
British  Cabinet  to  reject  bills  of  that  description.* 
The  colonial  legislatures  of  Pennsylvania  and 
New  Jersey  followed  the  example  of  New  England 
in  seeking  to  interdict  the  farther  importation  of 
African  slaves  by  prohibitive  duties.     But  the  in- 
fluence of  the  African  Company,  and  other  slave- 
traders  in  the  mother  country,  was  ever  found  ade- 
quate to  cause  their  enactments  to  be  rejected  by 
the  Crown.     It  is  stated  by  Lord  Brougham,  in  that 
celebrated  work  on  the  "  Colonial   Policy  of  the 
European  Powers,"  which  at  an  early  period  of  his 
brilliant  career,  earned  for  him  the  highest  reputa- 
tion in  economical  science,  that  "Every  measure 
proposed  by  the  colonial  legislatures,  which  did  not 
meet  the  entire  concuirence  of  the  British  cabinet, 
was  sure  to  be  rejected  in  the  last  instance  by  the 
Crown.     In  the  colonies,  the  direct  power  of  the 
Crown,  backed  by  all  the  resources  of  the  mother 
country,  prevented  any  measure  obnoxious  to  the 
Crown  from  being  carried  into  effect,  even  by  the 
unanimous  efforts  of  the  colonial  legislature.      If 


*  See  Massachusetts  Hist.  Coll.  for  Belknap's  account  of 
Slavery  in  that  province.  See  also,  Gordon's  '«  Hist,  of  the  Am. 
Rev."  Vol.  V.  letter  2. 


11 


M 


examples  were  required,  we  might  refer  to  the  his- 
tory of  the  aboUtion  of  the  slave-trade  in  Virginia. 
A  duty  on  the  importation  of  negroes  had  been 
imposed,  amounting  to  a  prohibition.  One  Assem- 
bly, induced  by  a  temporary  peculiarity  of  circum- 
stances, repealed  this  law  by  a  bill  which  received 
the  immediate  sanction  of  the  Crown.  But  never 
afterwards  could  the  royal  assent  be  obtained  to  a 
renewal  of  the  duty ;  although,  as  we  are  told  by 
Mr.  Jefferson,  all  manner  of  expedients  were  tried 
for  this  purpose,  by  almost  every  subsequent  Assem- 
bly that  met  under  the  colonial  government.  The 
very  first  Assembly  that  met  under  the  new  con- 
stitution finally  prohibited  the  traffic."* 

Edmund  Burke,  in  his  celebrated  speech  on  con- 
ciliation with  America,  recognised  her  "refusal  to 
deal  any  more  in  the  inhuman  traffic  of  the  Negro 
slaves,  as  one  of  the  causes  of  her  quarrel  with  Great 
Britain."  And  in  the  first  clause  of  the  indepen- 
dent constitution  of  Virginia,  "  the  inhuman  use  of 
the  royal  negative"  in  this  matter  is  enumerated 
among  the  reasons  justifying  the  separation  of  the 
colonies  from  the  mother  country. f 

*  Brougham's  "  Colonial  Policy,"  b.  ii.  §  i. 

t  Walsh's  "  Appeal,"  p.  317. 

Ill  1772,  the  Assembly  of  Virginia  presented  a  petition  to  the 
Crown,  stating  that  the  importation  of  slaves  into  the  colony  from 
the  coast  of  Africa  had  long  been  considered  as  a  trade  of  great  in- 
humanity, and  under  its  present  encouragement  they  had  too  much 
reason  to  fear  would  endanger  the  very  existence  of  his  Majesty's 
American  dominions  ;  that  it  gieatly  retarded  their  settlement  with 
more  useful  inhabitants  ;  and  the  Assembly  presumed  to  hope  that 


12 


li 


It  is  then  not  too  much  to  assert  that  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery,  which  has  now  become  identified 
with  the  social  system  of  the  Southern  American 
States,  was  originally  established  among  them  by 
the  selfish  policy  of  the  mother  country,  and  was 
perpetuated  by  the  refusal  of  the  metropolitan  go- 
vernment to  concur  in  the  measures  necessary  to 
prevent  the  increase  of  the  evil  by  importation. 
We  may  even  go  farther,  and  affirm,  with  the  able 
author  of  the  "  Appeal  from  the  Judgments  of  Great 
Britain  respecting  the  United  States,"  that  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery  would  never  have  existed  in  the 
latter,  or  at  least  would  have  been  abolished  by  the 


IM 


the  interests  of  a  few  would  be  disregarded  when  placed  in  compe- 
tition with  the  secvri/y  and  happiness  of  such  mtmbers  of  his  Ma- 
jesty's diUiful  and  loyal  subjects ;  and  beseeching  the  Crown  to 
remove  (til  those  restraints  on  the  governors  of  that  colony,  which 
iphibited  their  assenting  to  such  laws  as  might  check  so  very  per- 
nicious a  commerce.  Judge  Tucker,  in  his  "  Notes  to  the  Ame- 
rican Edition  of  Blackstone's  Commentaries,"  from  which  we 
borrow  this  account  of  the  petition,  states  that  he  had  been  lately 
favoured  with  the  perusal  of  a  letter  from  Granville  Sharp,  dated 
March  25th,  1794,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  petition  thus  :^ — "  I 
myself  was  desired,  by  a  letter  from  America,  to  inquire  for  an 
answer  to  this  extraordinary  Virginia  petition.  I  waited  on  the 
Secretary  of  State  and  was  informed  by  himself  that  the  petition 
was  received,  but  that  he  apprehended  no  answer  vjould  be  given." 
—Tucker's  Blackslone,  vol.  i.  pt.  2 ;  App.  x.  p.  431. 

In  the  Address  of  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament  to  the  Prince 
Regent  in  1819  (hereafter  quoted,)  on  the  subject  of  the  Jave- 
trade,  it  is  distinctly  avowed  that  Great  Britain  "  was  originally 
instrumental  in  leading  the  Americans  into  this  criminal  course." 
— Fourteenth  Report  of  the  Directors  of  the  African  Association, 
p.  6. 


13 


;A; 


M 
m 


■  a 


■<4 


efforts  of  the  colonies  themselves,  if  it  had  not  been 
for  the  counteracting  power  of  the  mother  country. 
The  earliest  denunciation  of  the  iniquities  of  the 
slave-trade  proceeded  from  that  province  founded 
by  William  Penn ;  and  the  great  English  apostle  of 
abolition  has  borne  testimony  to  the  fact,  that  the 
writings  which  gave  the  first  impulse  to  the  benevo- 
lent efforts  of  his  religious  sect  in  this  cause' pro- 
ceeded from  the  same  quarter.*  Long  before  Clark- 
son  had  succeeded  in  rousing  the  English  nation 
from  its  apathy  on  this  subject, — an  apathy  which 
had  been  confirmed  by  selfish  class-interests,  then 
enlisted  in  favour,  as  they  are  now  enlisted  against, 
the  slave-trade,  Anthony  Benezet,  and  a  crowd  of 
other  American  philanthropists,  had  anticipated  his 
labours  in  the  same  field. f 

No  sooner  was  the  independence  of  the  Colonies 
declared  in  1776  than  the  American  Congress  passed 
a  resolution  against  the  purchase  of  slaves  imported 
from  Africa.  The  constitutional  powers  of  this  body 
did  not,  at  that  period  of  time,  extend  to  a  legal  pro- 
hibition of  the  importation  into  the  United  States, 
or  of  the  trade  in  slaves  between  Africa  and  the  Eu- 
ropean West  India  Colonies.  But  the  several  state 
governments  of  Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  and  New 


*  See  Clarkson's  "  History  of  the  Abolition." 

t  Speaking  of  the  combined  opposition  to  the  abolition  in  Eng- 
land, Clarkson  says,  "  The  slave-trade  appeared,  like  the  fabulous 
Hydra,  to  have  a  hundred  heads  ;  the  merchant,  the  planter,  ihe 
mortgagee,  the  manufacturer,  the  politician,  the  legislator,  the  ca- 
binet-minister, lifted  up  their  voices  against  its  annihilation." 


14 


'h 


i'l  I 


England,  passed  laws  prohibiting  both  the  foreign 
slave-trade  and  the  importation  of  slaves  under  the 
severest  penalties.  On  the  establishment  of  the  pre- 
sent federal  constitution,  the  Congress  was  invested 
with  the  power  of  prohibiting  the  foreign  slave-trade 
immediately,  and  the  importation  of  slaves  into  all 
the  states  of  the  Union  after  the  \st  of  January , 
1808.  The  abolition  of  the  African  slave-trade,  so 
far  as  American  citizens  are  concerned,  was  thus 
made  a  part  of  the  federal  compact,  or  fundamental 
law  of  the  Union ;  and  the  powers  thus  given  to 
Congress  were  exerted  in  the  law  of  the  22d  of 
March,  1794,  which  prohibited  American  citizens 
from  participating  in  the  foreign  slave-trade  under 
the  penalties  of  fine  and  imprisonment  from  that 
date,  and  at  the  same  time  anticipated  the  interdic- 
tion of  the  importation  of  slaves  after  the  time  li- 
mited in  the  new  federal  constitution.  In  1807, 
laws  were  enacted  by  the  Congress,  on  the  recom- 
mendation of  President  Jefferson,  giving  effect  to 
the  latter  branch  of  the  constitutional  power  by  the 
actual  prohibition  of  the  importation  of  slaves  into 
the  Union  after  the  first  of  January,  1808.  In  the 
same  year,  1807,  an  act  was  passed  which  provided 
that  no  vessels  should  clear  out  on  a  slaving  voyage 
from  any  port  within  the  British  dominions  after  the 
1st  of  May,  1807,  and  that  no  slave  should  be  landed 
in  the  British  Colonies  after  the  1st  of  March  1808. 
And  yet  Lord  Castlereagh  was  heard  to  boast  in  the 
House  of  Commons  on  the  9th  of  February,  1818, 
that  on  the  subject  of  punishing  the  traffic  as  a  crime, 
Great  Britain  "had  led  the  way."    The  truth  is, 


15 


that  the  American  federal  government  had  inter- 
dicted the  foreign  slave-trade  thirteen  years  before 
Great  Britain ;  that  they  had  made  it  "  punishable 
as  a  crime"  seven  years  before;  and  established  the 
period  of  non-importation  into  the  Union  four  years 
sooner  than  that  assigned  by  Great  Britain  for  her 
Colonies.* 

Denmark  abolished,  in  1792,  both  the  foreign 
slave-trade  and  the  importation  into  her  Colonies, — 
both  prohibitions  to  take  effect  in  1804.  So  that, 
in  fact,  America  preceded  all  other  nations  in  abo- 
lishing the  foreign  slave-trade;  and  all  others,  ex- 
cept Denmark,  in  prohibiting  the  importation,  and 
actually  preceded  Great  Britain  in  making  the 
traffic  a  criminal  offence. 

Nor  did  the  American  interdiction  remain  a  dead 
letter.  It  has  been  executed  by  the  penal  sanctions 
provided  in  the  above  laws,  with  the  auxiliary  aid 
of  a  naval  force  on  the  American  coasts  which  had 
been  specially  provided  in  the  act  of  1794.  The 
operations  of  this  force  have  been  since  extended  to 
the  African  and  West  Indian  Seas. 

On  the  20th  April,  1818,  an  additional  act  was 
passed  increasing  the  penalties  of  the  former  law. 
And  on  the  1st  March,  1819,  a  law  of  Congress 
was  passed,  punishing  the  offence  of  importing 
African  slaves  with  death. 

The  general  traffic  was  afterwards  declared  to 
be  piracy,  by  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  15th  May, 


*  Walsh's  "  Appeal,"  p.  323. 


16 

1820.*  But  the  piracy  thus  created  by  municipal 
statute  must  not  be  confounded  with  piracy  under 
the  law  of  nations.  All  that  is  meant  is,  that  the 
offence  is  visited  with  the  pains  and  penalties  of 
piracy. 

In  point  of  fact,  no  considerable  importation  of 
African  slaves  into  the  United  States  has  taken 
place  since  it  was  prohibited  in  1808.  Public  opi- 
nion stigmatizing  the  traffic  as  a  crime  against  hu- 
manity, and  the  particular  interest  of  the  southern 
states  against  augmenting  the  dangerous  black  po- 
pulation, which  already  increases  by  natural  means 
more  rapidly  than  the  white,  have  combined  to  sti- 
mulate the  zeal  of  the  public  authorities  and  of  the 
naval  commanders  to  whom  this  service  has  been 


!| 


tli 


*  III  the  Supplement  to  the  Fifteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  Di- 
rectors of  the  African  Association,  the  committee  state: — "  America 
alone  has  practically  seconded  our  efforts  with  cordiality.     But 
even  this  power,  anxious  as  the  committee  believe  her  to  be  in 
her  Avishes  to  destroy  this  enormous  evil,  in  which  too  many  of 
her  subjects  still  participate,  is  restrained  by  certain  constitutional 
considerations  from  that  full  co-operation  which  is  necessary  to 
its  effectual  repression.     If,  however,  the  report  shall  be  con- 
firmed, that  she  has,  by  a  legislative  enactment,  stamped  the 
slave-trade  with  the  brand  of  piracy,  and  subjected  every  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  every  foreigner  sailing  under  the 
American  flag,  who  .shall  be  engaged  in  carrying  it  on,  to  capital 
punishment,  she  will  have  elevated  her  character  to  a  height  to 
which  other  nations  may  look  with  envy;  and  she  will  have  set 
an  example  which  Great  Britain,  the  committee  cannot  doubt, 
will  be  among  the  very  first  to  imitate,  and  which  j'^ust,  sooner 
or  later,  become  a  part  of  the  universal  code  of  the  civilized 
world."— P.  8. 


17 


,«* 


'1 


confided.  If  their  efforts  have  not  been  completely- 
successful  in  effectually  suppressing  the  foreign 
slave-trf"^e,  and  if  some  few  American  vessels  and 
citizens  are  still  employed  in  transporting  slaves 
from  the  coast  of  Africa  to  Brazil  and  the  Spanish 
West  India  colonies,  it  is  owing  to  the  same  cir- 
cumstances which  have  hitherto  baffled  the  efforts 
of  other  governments  to  prevent  such  a  fraudulent 
abuse  of  their  flag.  The  abolition  of  the  slave-trade 
by  Great  Britain  slowly  won  its  way  to  public  fa- 
vour through  innumerable  difficulties,  both  within 
and  without  the  walls  of  parliament.  We  have 
already  seen  what  powerful  interests,  political  and 
commercial,  were  combined  to  retard,  and  if  possi- 
ble to  defeat,  the  measure.  The  abolition-bill,  car- 
ried through  the  Commons  by  the  exertions  of  Mr. 
Wilberforce  in  1804,  was  immediately  thrown  out 
by  the  Lords,  and  the  next  year  was  again  lost  in 
the  Commons.  It  was  ultimately  carried  under  the 
auspices  of  the  coalition  ministry  of  Mr.  Fox  and 
Lord  Grenville,  who,  though  transformed  into  poli- 
tical enemies  on  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  with 
France  1793,  had  ever  continued  the  zealous  and 
eloquent  advocates  of  the  abolition.  This  ministry, 
which  might  be  considered  a  happy  accident  in  the 
progress  of  the  cause,  did  not  long  survive  the 
death  of  Mr.  Fox,  which  foUowed  within  a  few 
months  that  of  his  great  rival.  His  colleague, 
Lord  Grenville,  had  barely  time  to  hurry  the  mea- 
sure through  parliament  before  the  cabinet  was 
dissolved;  and  it  is  remarked  by  Clarkson,  that 
though  the  bill  had  now  passed  both  hoilses, 
3 


^'^■J^lJMu^^tB^lrl  MwaW'L  M  JLIItftJ  <* '  H 


18 


"  There  was  an  awful  fear  lest  it  should  not  receive 
the  royal  assent  before  the  Grenville  ministry  was 
dissolved." 

This  fear  might  well  seem  reasonable,  since,  as 
we  are  told  by  Lord  Brougham,  "  The  court  was 
decidedly  against  abolition.  George  III.  always 
regarded  the  question  with  abhorrence,  as  savour- 
ing of  innovation,— and  innovation  in  a  part  of 
his  empire  connected  with  his  earliest  and  most 
rooted  prejudices,  the  colonies!  The  courtiers 
took,  as  is  their  wont,  the  colour  of  their  senti- 
ments from  him.  The  peers  were  of  the  same  opi- 
nion."* 

The  measure  was,  at  last,  reluctantly  sanctioned 
by  the  Crown ;  and  so  long  as  the  mighty  struggle 
between  Great  Britain  and  her  Continental  enemies 
continued,  it  was  sought  to  be  executed,  so  far  as 
neutral  countries  were  concerned  (except  Portu- 
gal,) by  the  exercise  of  the  belligerent  right  of  visi- 
tation and  search.  France,  Spain,  and  Holland, 
were  cut  off  from  participating  in  the  slave-trade 
by  the  mere  operation  of  the  war  itself.  The  en- 
lightened British  cabinet  of  1806  foresaw  that  if 
they  should  be  able  to  carry  the  measure  of  abolition, 
the  restoration  of  peace  must  be  coupled  with  the 
restitution  of  the  colonies,  or  a  greater  part  of  the 
colonies,  conquered  by  Great  Britain  from  her  ene- 
mies, France,  Spain,  and  Holland.  In  the  abortive 
negotiation  for  peace  undertaken  by  Mr.  Fox  in 


I 


*  Brougham,   "Statesmen  who  flourished  in  the   Reign  of 
George  III.,"  p.  154.    Paris  ed. 


ii 


19 


1806,  an  attempt  was  made  to  induce  France  to 
join  with  Great  Britain  in  abolishing  the  slave- 
trade.  In  the  account  given  by  Mr.  Fox's  ambas- 
sador, Lord  Lauderdale,  in  parliament,  of  the  causes 
of  the  failure  of  this  negotiation,  the  latter  stated, 
that  on  his  urging  with  the  French  ministers,  M. 
de  Champagny  and  General  Clarke,  the  joint  abo- 
lition of  the  slave-trade,  he  was  answered,  "  That 
England,  with  her  colonies  well  stocked  with 
negroes,  and  affording  a  larger  produce,  might 
abolish  the  trade  without  inconvenience ;  but  that 
France,  with  colonies  ill  stocked,  and  deficient  in 
produce,  could  not  abolish  it  without  conceding  to 
us  the  greatest  advantages,  and  sustaining  a  propor- 
tionate loss."* 

In  the  year  1808,  Spain  and  Portugal  threw 
themselves  into  the  arms  of  Great  Britain  for  pro- 
tection against  the  aggressive  attack  of  Napoleon, 
under  circumstances  apparently  favourable  to  the 
adhesion  of  these  countries  to  the  measures  deemed 
necessary  lo  give  effect  to  the  abolition.  The  rela- 
tions of  peace  and  amity  between  Great  Britain  and 
Spain  being  restored,  the  measure  could  no  longer 
be  executed  against  vessels  sailing  under  the  Spanish 
flag  by  the  ordinary  means  of  the  belligerent  right 
of  visitation  and  search;  for  the  novel  distinction  of 
a  right  to  ascertain  the  character  of  the  suspected 
vessel,  by  an  examination  of  her  papers  and  equip- 
ments, (which  we  shall  hereafter  endeavour  to  show 
is  a  distinction  without  a  difference,)  had  not  yet 


*  Gobbet's  "  Parliamentary  Debates,"  1807,  vol.  viii. 


I    ■ 

n 


20 


:■  I 


•  ii '.! 


lii 


■H^ 


'S 


been  invented,  or  even  so  much  as  hinted  at  in  the 
"writings  of  any  British  civilian,  the  decisions  of  any 
British  judge,  or  in  official  documents  signed  by 
any  British  statesman.  The  abolition  could  not  be 
lawfully  executed  against  vessels  sailing  under  the 
Portuguese  flag  by  exercising  the  belligerent  right 
of  search,  because  Portugal  had  secured  to  herself 
by  an  ancient  treaty,  then  still  subsisting,  an  ex- 
emption from  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  search 
for  enemy's  property  as  constantly  maintained  by 
Great  Britain  towards  other  neutral  powers.  Rea- 
sons of  temporary  policy  prevented  the  British  cabi- 
net of  1808-9  from  even  remonstrating  with  the 
Spanish  government  of  the  Cortes  against  its  being 
carried  on  under  their  flag.  "  It  would  have  been 
unwise"  said  Mr.  Canning  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, "  to  have  taken  a  high  tone  with  them  in  the 
day  of  their  distress ;  a  strong  remonstrance  on  this 
subject  would  have  gone  with  too  much  authority, 
and  would  have  appeared  insulting."  But  with  the 
feeble  and  dependent  power  of  Portugal  that  high 
tone  was  actually  assumed ;  and  an  order  in  coun- 
cil was  issued,  authorizing  British  cruisers  to  bring 
in  for  adjudication  such  Portuguese  ships  as  might 
be  found  carrying  slaves  to  places  not  subject  to  the 
crown  of  Portugal.  Still  the  traffic  continued  ra- 
pidly to  increase,  under  circumstances  of  increased 
cruelty,  covered  as  it  was  by  the  flags  both  of  Spain 
and  Portugal.  On  the  19th  of  February,  1810, 
two  treaties  were  concluded,  one  of  alliance  and 
the  other  of  commerce,  between  Great  Britain  and 
the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal,  at  Rio  Janeiro, 


II 


91 

whither  his  Royal  Highness  had  fled  to  seek  shel- 
ter from  the  storm  of  French  invasion.  By  the 
10th  article  of  the  first-named  treaty,  the  Prince 
Regent  stipulated  to  prohibit  his  Fubjects  from  car- 
rying on  the  slave-trade  in  any  part  of  Africa  not 
belonging  to  him,  and  within  which  limits  other 
European  powers  had  renounced  it.  Great  Bri- 
tain, at  the  same  time,  consented  to  tolerate  the 
traffic  in  the  African  possessions  of  Portugal,  in  re- 
turn for  other  concessions  secured  to  her  in  the 
commercial  treaty.  One  of  the  most  important  of 
these  was  the^jonsent  of  Portugal  to  suppress  the 
stipulations  contained  in  the  ancient  treaty  con- 
cluded between  the  English  Commonwealth,  under 
the  Protector  Cromwell,  and  the  Portuguese  crown, 
in  1654,  by  which  the  principle  of  free  ships,  free 
goods f  was  recognised  by  England  in  favour  of  the 
Portuguese  flag.*  For  more  than  a  century  and  a 
half  this  stipulation  had  continued  to  exempt  Portu- 
guese ships  from  the  exercise  of  the  belligerent  right 
of  visiting  and  searching  for  enemy's  property,  as 
asserted  by  Great  Britain ;  which  power  thus  rid 
herself  of  the  last  remaining  treaty,  by  which  she 
had  been  bound  to  respect  the  principle  of  free 
ships,  free  goods,  asserted  by  most  of  the  Continental 
nations. 

The  recent  armed  neutrality  of  1800  had,  doubt- 
less, convinced  her  of  the  dangers  to  her  maritime 
ascendancy  which  lurked  under  a  concession  origi- 


*  Schoell, 
pp.  42-45. 


"Histoirc  Abregee  des  TraiU's  de  Paix,"  torn  x. 


I 


^ 


^i 


r  ' 


22 

nally  made  to  Portugal  as  the  price  of  exclusive 
commercial  privileges  to  British  subjects.  The 
treaty  of  Utrecht,  1713,  by  which  the  rule  o{  Jree 
ships,  free  goods,  had  been  adopted  between  Great 
Britain,  France,  and  Holland,  and  which  had  been 
constantly  renewed  at  every  successive  peace  be- 
tween these  maritime  powers  down  to  the  French 
Revolution,  was  swept  away  from  the  European 
code  of  public  law,  by  that  mighty  tempest.  On 
the  rupture  which  took  place  between  Great  Britain 
and  Russia,  in  consequence  of  the  British  attack  on 
Copenhagen  in  1807,  the  Russian  goyernment  pub- 
lished, on  the  20th  of  October  of  that  year,  a  decla- 
ration, "proclaiming  anew  the  principles  of  the 
armed  neutrality,  tliat  monument  of  the  Empress 
Catherine,"  and  engaging  ^^  never  to  depart  from  that 
si/stem."  In  answer  to  this  declaration,  the  British 
government  on  the  18th  December,  1807,  "pro- 
claimed anew  those  principles  of  maritime  law, 
against  which  was  directed  the  armed  neutrality 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Empress  Catherine ;"  and 
also  stated  that  it  was  "  the  right,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  duty,  of  his  Britannic  Majesty  to  maintain 
those  principles,  which  he  was  determined  to  main- 
tain, with  the  aid  of  Divine  Piovidence,  against 
every  confederacy  whatever."* 

This  great  controversy  respecting  the  rights  of 
neutral  navigation  thus  remained  undecided ;  and 
Great  Britain  not  only  provided,  by  the  treaties  of 
1810  with  Portugal,   against    the   danger  which 

*  Martens,  "  Manuel  Diplomatique  sur  lea  Droits  des  Neutres 
sur  Mer,"  p.  69. 


i{! 


23 


might  lurk  in  the  stipulations  of  iier  ancient  treaty 
with  the  same  power,  but  she  secured  the  incidental 
means  of  executing  her  prohihition  of  the  slave- 
trade  without  doing  direct  violence  lo  Portuguese 
independence. 

Notwithstanding  Great  Britain  thus  continued 
to  exercise  the  unc^  xtested  right  of  search  against 
all  neutral  powers,  and  to  exclude  the  flag  of  her 
enemies  from  the  traffic  in  slaves,  by  the  mere 
operation  of  the  war  itself,  the  annual  reports  of 
the  African  Institution  in  London  conclusively 
show,  that  the  traffic,  thus  totally  interdicted  to 
British  subjects  and  American  citizens,  by  the  re- 
spective laws  of  both  countries ;  to  the  enemies  of 
Great  Britian  by  the  incidental  operation  of  the 
laws  of  war  ;  and  partially  interdicted  to  her  allies 
by  special  conventional  arrangements,  continued  to 
be  carried  on  with  continually  augmenting  horrors 
down  to  the  general  peace  of  1814,  not  only  under 
the  allied  and  neutral  flags  of  Spain,  Portugal,  and 
Sweden,  but  in  British  vessels  fitted  out  in  the 
ports  of  London  and  Liverpool  under  the  neutral 
flag  and  papers,  but  navigating  on  account  of 
British  slave-traders.* 

The  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade  by  the  treaty 
of  1810  between  Great  Britain  and  Portug"'  vas 
of  very  little  importance,  as  the  Portuguese  p  - 
sessions  in  Africa,  south  of  the  equator,  exempted 
from  the  operation  of  the  treaty,  were  precisely  the 
markets  to  which  the  slave-dealers  principally  re- 


*   Reports  of  1810,  18il,  1812,  and  1813. 


' 


I 


'I 


r^ 


[U 


U 


""A 


sorted  for  a  supply  of  the  wretched  victims  of  their 
detestable  traffic.  Swedbii  was  the  next  power  to 
co-operate  :.:  the  cause  of  abolition.  The  island 
of  Gaudaloupe,  conquered  from  I'rance,  was  ceded 
to  the  Swedish  crown,  upon  condition  that  the 
importation  of  slaves  into  that  colony  and  the  other 
possession-^  of  Sweden  should  be  prohibited.  By 
the  peace  of  Kiel,  concluded  on  the  14th  of  January, 
1814,  Denmark,  which  had  prohibited  the  impor- 
tation into  her  colonies  long  before  Great  Britain 
had  adopted  a  similar  measure,  was  made  to  stipu- 
late the  total  prohibition  of  the  traffic  to  her 
subjects.* 

Louis  XVIII.,  who  had  declared  that  he  owed 
his  restoration  to  the  French  throne  (under  Divine 
Providence)  to  the  Prince  Regent  of  Great  Britain, 
was  soon  called  upon  to  testify  his  gratitude  by  in- 
terdicting the  slave-trade  to  his  subjects,  who  had 
been  excluded  from  it  by  the  operation  of  the  war. 
He  consented  to  prohibit  the  importation  into  the 
French  colonies  by  foreigners  immediately, — but 
insisted  on  tolerating  it  for  five  years  longer,  in  re- 
spect to  his  own  subjects,  in  order  to  enable  the 
French  planters  to  cor^pete  with  the  British  islands, 
which  were  already  fully  stocked.f     The  British 


r 


\ 


*  Schoell,  "  Histoire  des  Traites  de  Paix,"  torn.  xi.  pp.  1  .'7, 
178. 

t  Schoell,  torn.  xi.  p.  178.  In  defending  the  stipulation  in 
the  treaty  of  Paris,  signed  the  30th  May,  1814  (first  additional 
article,)  relating  to  the  French  slave-trade,  against  the  attacks  of 
the  opposition.  Lord  Castlereagh  stated  to  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, that,  "  However  he  and  tl)e  British  nation  might  be  in- 
clined to  make  sacrifices  for  ths  abolition,  he  could  assure  the 
House  that  such  was  not  the  impression  in  France,  and  that  even 


> 


•^5 


" 


t  t 


government  endeavoured  to  tempt  France  to  con- 
cede the  immediate  abolition  by  the  offer  of  a  sum 
of  money,  or  the  cession  of  a  West  India  island,  but 
without  success.* 

By  the  treaty  of  peace  concluded  at  Ghent  the 
24th  December,  1S14,  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  the  trade  was  denounced  as  irre- 
concilable with  the  priTT'iples  of  justice  and  hu- 
manity, and  the  contracting  parties  mutually  agreed 
to  continue  to  employ  their  best  efforts  to  promote 
its  entire  abolition. 

We  have  already  shown  that  the  United  States 
have  fally  redeemed  this  pledge. 

The  Dutch  government,  by  a  decree  of  the 
15th  June,  1815,  prohibited  the  slave-trade  to  its 
subjects,  but  this  prohibition  was  not  then  speci- 
fically applied  to  the  former  Dutch  colonies,  since 
they  still  remained  in  the  possession  of  Great  Bri- 
tain by  right  of  conquest.  By  the  convention  of 
the  13th  of  August,  1815,  the  Dutch  government 
purchased  the  restitution  of  their  colonies,  except- 
ing the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  and  Dutch  Guiana,  by 
the  entire  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade,  including 
the  importation  into  the  restored  colonies.-j; 


among  the  better  classes  of  people  there,  ihe  British  government 
did  not  gel  full  credit  for  their  motives  of  acting.  The  motives 
were  not  there  thought  to  arise  from  benevolence,  but  from  a 
wish  to  impose  fetters  on  the  French  colonies  and  injure  their 
commerce. "^ 

'  "  Ninili  Report  of  the  airectors  o*"  the  African  Institution,"' 
pp.  15,  16. 

t  Schocll,  torn.  X.  p.  536;  xi.  p.  179. 


•m 


il 


Lord  Wellington,  being  reappointed  British  am- 
bassador at  Paris  in  18]  6,  was  instructed  to  propose 
to  Louis  XVIIL  (a  second  time  restored  to  the 
throne  of  his  ancestors  by  the  efforts  of  Great  Bri- 
tain and  her  allies)  the  prohibition  of  the  importa- 
tion of  all  colonial  produce  raised  in  the  territories 
of  those  countries  which  had  not  yet  abolished  the 
slave-trade.  The  proposition  was  rejected  by  the 
French  Government,  and  the  whole  subject  referred 
to  the  Congress  of  Vienna.* 

During  the  negotiation  of  the  treaty  concluded 
at  Madrid,  on  the  5th  of  July,  1814,  between  Great 
Britain  and  Spain,  the  British  minister.  Sir  Henry 
Wellesley  (now  Lord  Cowley,)  endeavoured  to 
cause  an  article  to  be  inserted,  by  which  Spain 
should  prohibit  to  her  subjects  both  the  general 
slave-trade  and  the  importation  into  the  Spanish 
colonies.  But  the  British  negotiator  was  only  able 
to  obtain  from  the  Spanish  government  the  inter- 
diction to  its  subjects  of  the  foreign  slave-trade  to 
other  than  the  Spanish  possessions,  the  Duke  of 
San  Carlos  remarking,  that  when  the  trade  was 
abolished  by  Great  Britain,  the  proportion  of  ne- 
groes to  whites  in  the  British  colonies  was  as  twenty 
to  one  in  number;    that,  on  the  contrary,  in  the 


*  Schoell,  torn.  xi.  p.  181.  The  first  additional  article  to  the 
treaty  ji  Paris,  30th  May,  1814,  had  already  provided  that  France 
and  Great  Britain  should  "  unite  their  efforts  at  the  Congress,  in 
order^to  declare  by  all  the  powers  of  Christendom  the  abolition  of 
the  negro  slave-trade  as  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  natural  jus- 
tice and  the  enlightened  age  in  which  we  live." — Martens,  Nou- 
veau  Recueil,  torn.  vi.  p.  11. 


i 
^ 


27 


Spanish  colonies,  there  were  not  more  negroes  than 
whites;  that  Great  Britain  had  taken  twenty  years 
to  accomplish  the  abolition,  from  the  first  incipient 
stage  of  its  beinor  carried  in  the  House  of  Commons 
in  1794  :  from  which  the  Spanish  minister  inferred, 
that  it  was  unreasonable  to  require  of  Spain  the 
sudden  adoption  of  a  measure  which  would  be  fatal 
to  the  very  existence  of  her  colonies.  After  the  sig- 
nature of  the  treaty.  Lord  Cowley  endeavoured  to 
tempt  the  Spanish  government  to  concede  a  point 
so  important  to  Great  Britain,  by  offering  to  con- 
tinue the  pecuniary  subsidies  which  the  deplorable 
condition  of  the  Spanish  finances  might  seem  to  ren- 
der indispensable.  It  appears  from  his  despatches 
thai  this  final  effort  of  the  able  British  negotiator 
proved  fruitless.* 

Lord  Castlereagh  was  more  successful  in  the  ne- 
gotiations he  undertook  with  Portugal,  and  which 
resulted  in  the  signature  of  two  conventions  wi.ii 
that  power,  siprned  at  Vienna  on  the  21st  and  22d 
of  January,  1815.  By  this  arrangement.  Great  Bri- 
tain obtained  from  the  Portuguese  ^  vernment,  for 
pecuniary  equivalents,  the  prohibition  to  its  subjects 
of  the  slave-trade  on  the  western  coast  of  Africa 
north  of  the  equator.f 

We  now  come,  in  the  course  of  our  rapid  histo- 
rical deduction,  to  the  memorable  epoch  of  the  Con- 
gress of  Vienna.  The  circumstances  are  notorious 
which  diverted  the  attention  of  this  great  Amphic- 

*  Schoell,  "  Recueil  des  Pieces  Officielles,  torn.  vii.  pp.  140, 
143,  171. 
t  Martens,  Recueil  des  Traites,"  torn,  xiii,  p.  93. 


28 


tyonic  council  of  nations  from  the  readjustment  of 
the  maritime  and  colonial  balance  of  power,  and 
from  the  renewal  of  those  stipulations  in  favour  of 
the  maritime  rights  of  neutrals  which  had  continued 
to  form  a  part  of  the  public  law  of  Europe  from  th3 
peace  of  Utrecht  to  the  French  Revolution.  During 
the  abortive  negotiation  for  peace  with  the  French 
republic  at  Lisle  in  178G,  the  British  negotiator, 
Lord  Malmsbury,  proposed  to  renew,  in  the  pro- 
jected treaty,  the  stipulation  which  had  been  re- 
peated at  every  successive  peace  concluded  between 
France  and  Great  Britain  since  the  treaties  of 
Utrecht,  1713,  confirming  the  various  articles  of 
those  treaties.  The  British  negotiator  stated  that 
great  confusion  would  ensue  from  the  non-renewal 
of  this  stipulation.  The  French  Directory,  how- 
ever, rejected  the  proposal,  doubtless  from  an  appre- 
hension that  such  an  engagement  might  prove  in- 
consistent with  the  new  territorial  arranffements 
which  the  acknowledgment  of  the  French  republic, 
and  its  brood  of  sister  republics,  would  necessarily 
draw  after  it.  Had  either  party  expected,  or  sin- 
cerely desired  peace  to  he,  the  result  of  this  negotia- 
tion, they  would  probably  have  more  deeply  consi- 
dered the  matter.  Great  Britain  might  have  weighed 
the  light  value  of  such  a  stipulation  in  restraining 
the  ambition  of  France,  whilst  France  might  have 
considered  the  renewed  acknowledgment  of  the 
principle  of  free  ships,  free  goods,  by  the  British 
government,  as  of  much  more  importance  to  the 
maritime  interests  of  France  than  the  mere  possible 
inferences  respecting  the  Continental  balance   of 


f 


29 


power  which  might  be  drawn  from  the  renewal  of 
the  treaties  of  Utrecht.  Be  this  as  it  may,  it  could 
not  be  expected  that  the  monarchs  assembled  at 
Vienna,  owing  so  deep  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the 
British  governnient  for  its  strenuous  resistance  to 
"  the  enemy  of  Europe,"  and  disturbed  p"  they  were 
in  the  midst  of  their  deliberations  by  ^.le  reappear- 
ance of  their  common  foe  on  the  scene  of  action, 
could  think  of  providing  against  the  possible  abuse 
of  the  immense  maritime  resources  and  naval  power 
which  the  results  of  the  war  had  left  in  the  hands 
of  Great  Britain,  and  which  she  had  taken  care  to 
secure  by  separate  treaties  of  peace  with  the  mari- 
time states,  her  late  enemies.  Nor  could  it  be  ex- 
pected that  the  allied  sovereigns  would  deny  to 
Great  Britain  almost  any  concession  in  favour  of 
her  colonial  interests,  which  did  not  directly  affect 
in  an  injurious  manner  the  commercial  interests  of 
those  Continental  states  who  possessed  no  colonies. 
This  was  more  especially  to  be  looked  for  when 
such  concessions  should  be  demanded  in  the  name 
of  humanity  and  of  the  sacred  cause  which  had  so 
long  and  deeply  engaged  the  affections  of  philan- 
thropists throughout  the  Christian  world .  The  only 
wonder  is,  after  all,  that  some  more  decisive  mea- 
sure was  not  obtained  by  Lord  Castlereagh  from 
the  Congress  than  the  declaration  of  the  15th  Fe- 
bruary, 1815,  denouncing  the  African  slave-trade 
"as  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  humanity 
and  universal  morality,"  and,  at  the  same  time, 
leaving  every  state  at  liberty  to  determine  for  itself, 
or  by  negotiation  with  others,  the  period  when  the 


i 


30 


i 


odious  traffic  should  be  finally  abolished.  Even 
this  qualified  denunciation  of  the  traffic  encountered 
serious  opposition  from  the  ministers  of  Spain  and 
Portugal,  who  absolutely  refused  to  listen  to  the  re- 
newal of  the  same  proposition  which  had  been  be- 
fore made  at  Paris,  that  in  case  the  trade  should  be 
still  continued  by  any  state  beyond  the  term  justi- 
fied by  real  necessity,  the  dissent  of  such  state 
should  be  punished  by  the  prohibition  of  the  im- 
portation, into  the  dominions  of  all  the  powers  re- 
presented in  the  Congress,  of  colonial  produce,  the 
growth  of  any  colony  where  the  trade  should  still 
continue  to  be  tolerated ;  and  that  they  should  only 
permit  the  introduction  of  the  products  of  such  colo- 
nies where  the  trade  was  unlawful;  "or,"  as  the 
protocol  stated,  "  those  of  the  vast  regions  of  the 
globe  which  furnish  the  same  productions  by  the 
labour  of  their  own  inhabitants."* 

The  ministers  of  Spain  and  Portugal  declared 
that  the  introduction  of  such  a  system  would  give 
rise  to  reprisals  on  the  part  of  any  State  to  which 
it  might  be  applied ;  and  they  urged  in  favour  of 
the  farther  continuance  of  the  traffic  in  human 
flesh  by  their  countrymen,  that  the  British  colo- 


*  Schoell,  "  Histoire  des  Traites  de  Paix,"  torn.  x.  pp.  187, 
188.  "  These  vast  regions,"  says  Schoell,  "  refer  to  the  British 
possessions  in  the  East  Indies,  the  interest  of  which,  though  their 
express  mention  was  studiously  avoided  in  the  negotiation,  was 
found  to  conform  to  the  principles  of  humanity  and  religion.  Eu- 
rope will  one  day  become  tributary  to  these  coui  tries,  when  the 
plantations  of  the  West  Indies  shall  be  deserted  lor  want  of  hands 
to  cultivate  them." 


31 


iiies  were  fully  stocked  with  slaves  during  the 
long  interval  which  elapsed  from  the  first  authentic 
proposal  until  the  final  adoption  of  the  measure  of 
abolition  by  Great  Britain ;  whilst  the  colonies  of 
Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  had  been  cut  off,  during  all 
that  period,  by  the  war,  from  recruiting  their  slave 
population ;  and  the  vast  regions  of  Brazil  still  re- 
quired an  annual  supply  from  the  African  coast  to 
keep  up  its  cultivation. 

The  result  was  that  Lord  Castlereagh  completely 
failed  in  his  endeavours  to  obtain  the  immediate 
abolition,  or  to  shorten  the  period  for  which  the 
trade  should  be  carried  on  by  France,  Spain,  and 
Portugal.  France  still  insisted  on  continuing  it  for 
five  years,  nor  could  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese 
Governments  be  prevailed  upon  to  fix  a  shorter  pe- 
riod than  eight  years.* 

What  the  British  Government  could  not  per- 
suade the  Bourbons  to  do,  the  Emperor  Napoleon 
spontaneously  did,  on  his  return  from  Elba,  by 
his  decree,  March,  1814,  immediately  abolishing 
the  slave-trade  in  France  and  her  colonies.f  This 
decree,  wedged  in  between  the  first  and  second  re- 
storations, must  evidently  be  considered  as  a  despe- 
rate attempt  to  conciliate  England  at  that  critical 
period  of  his  fortunes ;  since,  in  the  zenith  of  his 


*  Ninth  Report  of  the  Directors  of  the  African  Institution, 
pp.  18,  19.  Kliiber,  Acten  des  Wiener  Congresses,  bd.  iv. 
s.  531. 

t  Ninth  Report  of  the  Directors  of  tiie  African  Institution, 
Appendix  C.  p.  83. 


32 


power,  Ije  had,  as  we  liave  already  seen,  absolutely 
refused  the  concession  as  fatally  injurious  to  the 
colonial  interests  of  France.*  Louis  XVIII.,  on 
his  return  from  Ghent,  could  do  no  less  than  con- 
firm the  Imperial  measure,  by  a  formal  assurance 
that  "  the  trade  was  henceforth  for  ever  forbidden 
to  all  the  subjects  of  his  most  Christian  Majesty," 
under  the  hand  of  that  same  Prince  Talleyrand, 
who  once  said  that  "  language  was  given  to  man  to 
conceal  his  thoughts."  Whether  the  Bourbon  kings 
of  the  elder  branch  had  conceived  inveterate  preju- 
dices against  the  abolition,  as  a  dream  of  revolu- 
tionary philosophy  which  had  been  fearfully  realized 
in  the  bloody  catastrophe  of  the  flourishing  colony 
of  St.  Domingo,  or  whether  they  consulted  merely 
the  feelings  and  supposed  commercial  interests  of 
their  subjects,  it  would  be  superfluous  to  inquire. 
It  is,  however,  certain  that  the  pretended  abolition 

*  In  their  Tenth  Report,  27th  of  March,  1816,  the  Directors 
of  the  African  Institution  state  that  "the  gratification  they  felt  in 
being  able  to  lay  before  the  subscribers  the  memorable  denuncia- 
tion of  the  slave-trade  by  the  Powers  assembled  in  Congress  at 
Vienna,  was  greatly  damped  by  the  consideration  that  all  these 
measures,  however  wisely  planned  or  unceasingly  urged,  had 
iMoved  ineffectual;  and  that  the  French  Government  had  deter- 
mined to  retain  their  slave-trade  for  the  full  term  allowed  by  the 
treaty  of  Paris.  Very  soon,  however,  after  the  declaration  of  the 
Congress,  there  arose  a  cloud  in  the  political  horizon,  which 
seemed  to  threaten  desolation  to  the  civilized  world.  Yet,  amidst 
this  gloom,  a  beam  of  light  unexpectedly  shone  upon  Africa.  No 
sooner  had  Buonaparte  regained  for  a  season  the  government  of 
France,  than  he  issued  a  decree  for  the  immediate  and  total  aboli- 
tion of  the  French  slave-trade." 


33 

remained  for  a  long  time  unexecuted  under  the  go- 
vernment of  the  Restoration.* 

Jt  was  during  the  negotiations  undertaken  by 
the  British  Government  with  the  French  cabinet, 
after  the  peace  of  1814,  that  we  first  hear  of  the 
proposition  to  concede  the  mutual  right  of  search 
as  the  only  effectual  means  of  suppressing  the 
trade.  The  Duke  of  Wellington  proposed  it  to 
Prince  Talleyrand,  but  soon  discovered  "  that  it 
was  too  disagreeable  to  the  French  Government 
and  nation  to  admit  of  a  hope  of  its  being  urged 
with  success."! 

By  the  treaty  of  Madrid  of  the  22d  of  September, 


*  Eleventh  Report  of  the  Directors  of  the  African  Institution, 
pp.  1-10.  Memoranda  relating  to  the  slave-trade  in  France  in 
1820. 

t  Duke  of  Wellington's  Despatch  to  Lord  Castlereagh,  5th 
November,  1814. 

Mr.  Berryer,  in  his  Speech  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  Janu- 
ary 24,  stated  that  "  the  Duke  of  Wellington  communicated  on 
the  26th  of  August,  1814,  to  the  king's  ministry  a  memoir  tend- 
ing to  establish  the  principle  of  the  abolition  of  the  Negro  slave- 
trade;  and,  as  a  means  of  effecting  this  object,  he  demanded, 
among  other  things,  that  there  should  be  granted  to  the  ships  of 
war  of  both  nations,  north  of  the  equator,  and  to  the  twenty-fifth  de- 
gree of  west  longitude  from  the  meridian  of  Greenwich,  the  permis- 
sion to  visit  the  merchant-vessels  of  both  nations,  and  to  carry  into 
port  such,  on  board  of  which  slaves  should  be  found,  there  to  be 
confiscated  according  to  the  laws  of  the  state  to  which  they  might 
belong." 

M.  de  Talleyrand  answered,  in  the  name  of  the  King  of  France, 
that  he  would  never  admit  any  other  maritime  police  than  that 
which  each  power  exercised  on  board  its  own  vessels. — Journal 
lies  Debats,  January  25,  1842. 
6 


34 


I 


1817,  Great  Britain  purchased  from  Spain  the  im- 
mediate abolition  of  the  trade  north  of  the  equator, 
and  a  promise  to  abolish  it  entirely  after  the  year 
1820,  for  the  sum  of  400,000/.  Mr.  Wilberforce 
stated,  during  the  discussion  of  the  treaty  in  the 
House  of  Commons  on  the  9th  of  February,  1818, 
the  great  advantages  of  this  bargain :  "  He  could 
not  but  think  that  the  grant  to  Spain  would  be  more 
than  repaid  to  Great  Britain  in  commercial  advan- 
tages by  the  opening  of  a  great  continent  to  British 
industry, — an  object  which  would  be  entirely  de- 
feated if  the  slave-trade  was  to  be  carried  on  by  the 
Spanish  nation.  Our  commercial  connexion  with 
Africa  will  much  more  than  repay  us  for  any  pecu- 
niary sacrifices  of  this  kind.  He  himself  would  live 
to  see  Great  Britain  deriving  the  greatest  advan- 
tages from  its  intercourse  with  Africa." 

The  treaty  of  Madrid  also  contained  the  so  much- 
desired  concession  of  the,  right  of  search,  which  had, 
in  the  meantime,  been  yielded  by  Portugal,  as  to  the 
trade  interdicted  by  her  north  of  the  equator.  Du- 
ring the  same  debate  above  referred  to,  great  satis- 
faction was  expressed  with  this  arrangement.  "  The 
introduction  of  the  right  of  search,  and  of  bringing 
in  for  condemnation  in  time  of  peace,  was  declared 
to  be  a  precedent  of  the  utmost  importance."* 

Lord  Castlereagh  determined  to  avail  himself  of 
this  "  precedent"  without  delay.  He  assembled  the 
ministers  of  the  principal  maritime  powers  of  Eu- 
rope in  London  in  the  month  of  February  1818,  and 
laid  before  them  a  paper,  stating  that  since  the 

*  Walsh's  "  Appeal,"  p.  370. 


liCt 


peace  a  considerable  revival  of  the  slave-trade  had 
taken  place,  especially  north  of  the  equinoctial  line, 
and  that  the  traffic  was  principally  of  the  illicit  de- 
scription. That  as  early  as  July  1816,  a  circular 
intimation  had  been  given  to  all  British  cruisers, 
that  the  right  of  search,  being  a  belligerent  right,  had 
ceased  with  the  war.  That  it  was  proved  beyond 
the  possibility  of  doubt,  that  unless  the  right  to  visit 
vessels  engaged  in  the  slave-trade  should  be  esta- 
blished by  mutual  concessions  on  the  part  of  the  ma- 
ritime states,  the  illicit  traffic  must  not  only  con- 
tinue to  exist,  but  must  increase.  That  even  if  the 
traffic  were  universally  abolished,  and  a  single  state 
were  to  refuse  to  submit  its  flag  to  the  visitation  of 
the  vessels  of  other  states,  nothing  effectual  would 
have  been  done.  That  the  plenipotentiaries  ought, 
therefore,  to  enter  into  an  engagement  to  concede 
mutually  the  right  of  search,  ad  hoc,  to  their  ships 
of  war. 

The  ministers  of  the  different  maritime  powers  of 
the  European  continent  assembled  in  the  confe- 
rence, could  not,  of  course,  do  more  than  engage  to 
transmit  this  proposition  to  their  respective  courts.* 

On  the  21st  of  February,  1818,  Lord  Castlereagh 
addressed  Sir  Charles  Stuart,  the  British  ambassa- 
dor at  Paris,  a  despatch,  accompanied  with  a  memo- 
randum laid  before  the  conference  of  London,  with 
instructions  to  endeavour  to  obtain  the  assent  of  the 
French  Government  to  concur  in  adopting,  with  a 
view  to  the  more  effectual  suppression  of  the  slave- 

*  Thirteenth  Report  of  the  Directors  of  the  African  Institution, 
pp.  3-11. 


30 


In 

: 


trade,  the  mutual  riglit  of  search  which  had  been 
conceded  by  Spain,  Portugal,  anvi  the  Netherlands. 
But  the  proposition  was  rejected  by  the  Duke  of 
Richelieu,  on  tlie  ground  that  "  the  offer  of  reci- 
procity would  prove  illusory ;  and  that  disputes  must 
inevitably  arise  from  the  abuse  of  the  right,  which 
would  prove  more  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the 
two  governments  than  the  commerce  they  desired 
to  suppress."* 

The  American  minister  was,  of  course,  not  invited 
to  the  above  conference.  The  United  States  have 
hitherto,  wisely  as  they  believe,  avoided  as  far  as 
possible  entangling  themselves  in  the  complicated 
international  relations  of  Europe  and  the  inextricable 
labyrinth  of  European  politics.  Instead  of  appear- 
ing in  the  great  Amphictyonic  councils  of  European 
nations,  where  they  might  be  outvoted  by  a  prepon- 
derance of  interests  and  views  having  no  connexion 
with  their  policy,  they  have,  in  general,  abstained 
from  mixing  up  their  concerns  with  those  of  the  Old 
World.  This  policy,  of  course,  may  admit  of  ex- 
ceptions, which  will  probably  hereafter  be  multi- 
plied as  the  facilities  of  intercourse  between  the  two 
continents  of  Europe  and  America  are  increased, 
and  their  respective  corunercial  and  political  inte- 
rests become  more  blended  together.  But  the  sub- 
ject now  under  consideration  was  not  deemed  by  the 
American  cabinet  of  1818,  over  which  then  presided 
that  most  prudent  of  statesmen,  Mr.  Monroe,  to  con- 
stitute an  exception  to  those  general  rules  which 


*  Supplement  to  the  Fifteenth  AiMiual  Report  of  the  Directors 
of  the  African  Institution,  p.  77. 


87 


had  been  laid  down  by  Washington,  and  ever  since 
undeviatinpjly  pursued  by  the  illustrious  men  his 
successors,  without  distinction  of  domestic  party. 

Such  being  the  known  disposition  of  the  United 
States'  government,  the  proposal  in  question  was 
communicated  by  Lord  Castlereagh  to  Mr.  Rush, 
the  American  minister  in  London,  together  with  the 
treaties  then  recently  concluded  by  Great  Britain 
with  Spain,  and  other  European  powers,  conceding 
the  right  of  search  under  certain  regulations,  and 
inviting  the  American  Government  to  join  in  the 
same,  or  like  arrangements.  Mr.  Rush  took  the 
communication  ad  referendum  to  his  government. 

In  the  reply  of  Mr.  Secretary  Adams  to  Mr. 
Rush's  despatch  on  this  occasion,  the  latter  was 
directed  by  the  President  to  give  the  strongest 
assurances  to  the  British  Government  that  the 
solicitude  of  the  United  States  for  the  accomplisli- 
ment  of  the  common  object — the  total  and  final 
abolition  of  the  slave-trade — continued  with  all  the 
earnestness  that  had  ever  distinguished  the  course 
of  their  policy  in  respect  to  that  odious  traffic.  As 
a  proof  of  this  continued  earnestness,  Mr.  Rush 
was  desired  to  communicate  to  that  government 
a  copy  of  the  act  of  Congress  then  just  passed 
(act  of  the  20th  of  April,  1818,)  in  addition  to  the 
prohibitory  law  of  1807 ;  and  to  declare  the  readi- 
ness of  the  American  Government  to  adopt  any 
farther  measures,  within  their  constitutional  power, 
which  experience  might  prove  to  be  necessary 
for  the  purpose  of  attaining  so  desirable  an  end. 

But  on  examining  the  treaties  communicated  by 


fjim.  I 


Lord  Castlercagh,  it  would  be  observed  that  all 
their  essential  provisions  appeared  to  be  of  a  cha- 
racter not  capable  of  being  adapted  to  the  institu- 
tions or  the  circumstancvRs  of  the  United  States. 

The  power  agreed  to  be  reciprocally  given  to 
officers  of  the  ships  of  war  of  either  party  to  enter, 
search,  capture,  and  --arry  into  port  for  adjudica- 
tion the  merchani-vf»ssels  of  the  other,  however 
qualified  and  restricted,  is  ri^ost  essentially  con- 
nected with  the  establishment  by  each  treaty,  of 
two  mixed  courts,  one  ot  which  to  reside  in  the  ex- 
ternal or  colonial  possessions  of  each  of  the  two 
parties,  respectively.  Thii  part  of  the  system  was 
indispensable,  to  give  it  that  character  of  reci- 
procity without  which  the  right  granted  to  the 
armed  ships  of  one  nation  to  search  the  merchant- 
vessels  of  another  would  be  rather  a  mark  of  vassal- 
age than  of  independence.  But  to  this  part  of 
tho  system  the  United  States,  having  no  colonies, 
either  on  the  coast  of  Africa  or  in  the  West  Indies, 
could  not  give  effect. 

Mr.  Rush  was  instructed  to  add  that,  by  the 
American  constitution,  it  was  pro  vide''  that  the 
judicial  power  of  the  United  States  should  be 
vested  in  a  supreme  court,  and  in  such  inferior 
courts  as  the  Congress  might  from  time  to  time, 
ordain  and  establish.  It  provided  that  the  judges 
of  these  courts  should  hold  their  offices  during 
good  behaviour,  and  that  they  should  be  removeable 
by  impeachment  and  conviction  of  crime  or  misde- 
meanour. There  might  be  some  dou  :*  whether 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  federal  government 


w 


\l 


.1 


was  competent  to  institute  a  court  for  carrying  into 
execution  t'leir  penal  statutes  beyond  the  terri- 
tori<5S  of  the  United  States, — a  court  consisting 
pai  tly  of  foreign  judges  not  amenable  to  impeach- 
ment for  corruption,  and  deciding  upon  the  statutes 
of  the  United  States  without  appeal. 

It  was  farther  stated,  that  the  disposal  of  the 
negroes  found  on  board  the  slave-trading  vessels, 
which  might  be  condemned  by  these  mixed  courts, 
could  not  be  carried  into  effect  by  the  United 
States ;  for,  if  the  slaves  of  a  vessel  condemned  by 
the  mixed  court  should  be  delivered  over  to  the 
United  States'  government  as  free  men,  they  could 
not,  but  by  their  own  consent,  be  employed  as  ser- 
vants or  free  labourers.  The  condition  of  the  blacks 
in  the  American  Union  being  regulated  by  the  mu- 
nicipal laws  of  the  separate  states,  the  United  States' 
government  could  neither  guarantee  their  liberty  in 
the  States  where  they  could  only  be  received  as 
slaves,  nor  control  them  in  the  States  where  they 
would  be  recognised  as  free. 

That  the  admission  of  a  right  in  the  officers  of 
foreifyn  ships  of  war  to  enter  and  search  the  vessels 
of  the  United  States,  in  time  of  peace,  under  any 
circumstances  whatever,  would  meet  with  the  uni- 
versal repugnance  in  the  public  opinion  of  that 
country.  That  there  would  be  no  prospect  of  a 
ratification,  by  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate, 
to  any  stipulation  of  that  nature.  That  the  search 
by  foreign  officers,  even  in  time  of  war,  was  so  ob- 
noxious to  the  feelings  and  recollections  of  the  coun- 
try, that  nothing  could  reconcile  them  to  the  exten- 


r 


^^SaMKWirttttanm^SSSSZ 


40 


sion  of  it,  to  a  time  of  peace,  however  qualified  or 
restricted.  And  that  it  would  be  viewed  in  a  still 
more  aggravated  light,  if,  as  in  the  treaty  with  the 
Netherlands,  connected  with  a  formal  admission 
that  even  vessels  under  convoy  of  ships  of  war  of 
their  own  nation  should  be  liable  to  search  by  the 
ships  of  war  of  another. 

Mr.  Rush  was  therefore,  finally,  instructed  to 
express  the  regret  of  the  President,  that  the  stipu- 
lations in  the  treaties  communicated  by  Lord  Cas- 
tlereagh  were  of  a  character  to  which  the  peculiar 
situation  and  institutions  of  the  United  States  did 
not  permit  them  to  accede.  The  constitutional  ob- 
jection might  be  the  more  readily  understood  by 
the  British  cabinet,  if  they  were  reminded  that  it 
was  an  obstacle  proceeding  from  the  same  prin- 
ciple which  prevented  Great  Britain,  formally, 
from  being  a  party  to  the  Holy  Alliance;  neither 
could  they  be  at  a  loss  to  perceive  the  embarrass- 
ment under  which  the  American  Government  would 
be  placed  by  receiving  cargoes  of  African  negroes 
under  the  obligation  of  guaranteeing  their  liberty 
and  employing  them  as  servants.  Whether  the 
British  cabinet  would  be  as  leady  to  enter  into  the 
feelings  of  the  American  Government  with  regard 
to  the  search  by  foreign  navy  lieutenants  of  vessels 
under  convoy  of  American  naval  commanders,  was, 
perhaps,  of  no  material  importance.  The  other 
reasons  were  presumed  to  be  amply  sufl[icient  to 
convince  them  that  the  motives  for  declining  this 
overture  were  compatible  with  an  earnest  wish  that 
the  measures  concerted  by  these  treaties  may  prove 


41 

successful  in  extirpating  that  root  of  numberless 
evils,  the  traffic  in  human  blood ;  and  that  they 
were  also  compatible  with  the  determination  of  the 
American  Government  to  co-operate,  to  the  utmost 
extent  of  its  constitutional  powers,  in  this  great  vin- 
dication of  the  sacred  rights  of  humanity.* 

It  will  thus  be  perceived  that  the  proposition 
made  by  Lord  Castlereagh  to  the  American  Go- 
vernment to  concede  the  right  of  search  as  the  only 
effectual  means  of  attaining  the  common  end  both 
governments  equally  desired  to  attain,  was  cour- 
teously, but  peremptorily,  rejected  by  the  American 
cabinet.  The  pretension  of  exercising  that  right 
upon  American  vessels,  in  any  form,  however  miti- 
gated, and  under  any  name,  however  adapted  to 
conceal  its  real  character,  without  the  express  con- 
sent of  the  United  States,  was  not  then  even  so 
much  as  hinted  at  by  a  British  statesman,  not  want- 
ing in  bold  daring  on  occasions  suitable  to  the  dis- 
play of  that  quality.  But  Lord  Castlereagh,  with 
all  his  political  courage,  was  a  man  of  too  much 
sagacity  not  to  perceive  that  the  deep  wounds  in- 
flicted by  the  abuse  of  the  right  of  search,  which 
had  produced  the  war  between  the  two  countries, 
then  so  recently  terminated,  were  still  too  fresh  to 
allow  the  American  Government,  even  if  it  had 
been  so  disposed,  to  allow  of  its  revival  in  any 
shape  and  for  any  purpose,  even  by  compact,  much 


*  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams'  Despatch  to  Mr.  Rush,  November 
2,  1818.  American  "  State  Papers  "  (foreign  relations,)  vol.  ^v. 
p.  339. 

'  6 


mmm 


Vim 


4-2 


l\ 


less  to  submit  to  its  gratuitous  assumption  in  time 
of  peace.  When  the  Spanish  treaty  was  laid  before 
Parliament,  his  lordship  stated  that  "  The  illicit 
traffic  arose  out  of  the  partial  abolition,  and  oui  of 
the  facilities  created  by  the  cessation  of  belligerent 
rights  in  consequence  of  the  peace.  It  was  for  the 
first  time,  he  believed,  in  diplomatic  history  that 
the  states  of  Europe  had  bound  themselves  by  a 
mutual  stipulation  to  exercise  the  right  of  search 
jver  thcT"  respective  merchantmen  with  a  view  of 
giving  eL(  t.)  this  laudable  object.  They  had 
now  arriveti  .aid  he)  at  the  last  stage  of  their 
difficulties  and  the  last  stage  of  their  exertions. 
One  great  portion  of  the  world  was  rescued  from 
the  horrors  of  the  traffic.  The  approval  of  the 
grant  amounted  to  this,  whether  the  slave-trade 
should  be  entirely  abolished  or  not?"* 

Fortified  with  this  concession,  thus  purchased 
from  Spain,  Lord  Castlereagh  repaired  to  the  Con- 
gress of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  whither  he  was  foUov/ed 
by  Mr.  Clarkson,  the  great  apostle  of  abolition. 
The  latter  presented  in  November,  1818,  an  elo- 
quent memorial  to  the  assembled  sovereigns,  which 
was  supported  by  the  former  with  the  whole  weight 
of  the  power  and  influence  of  Great  Britain.  This 
paper  stated  that,  "In  point  of  fact,  little  or  no  pro- 
gress had  been  made  in  practically  abolishing  the 
slave-trade.  That  all  the  declarations  and  engage- 
ments of  the  European  powers  as  to  abolition,  must 
prove  perfectly  unavailing,  unless  new  means  were 


:!     I 


*  British  Annual  Register,  vol.  Ix.  p.  19. 


43 


adopted."  The  British  minister,  therefore,  pro- 
posed, as  the  only  means  left  of  accomplishing  the 
object  avowed  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  1st,  The 
general  concession  of  a  reciprocal  right  of  search 
and  detention  for  trial,  applicable  to  the  merchant- 
vessels  of  all  nations  who  had  prohibited  the  trade; 
2d,  The  solemn  proscription  of  the  trade  as  piracy 
under  the  law  of  nations. 

These  proposals  were  answered  by  the  Plenipo- 
tentiaries of  tlie  five  great  European  powers  in  sepa- 
rate notes.  France  peremptorily  rejected  both  pro- 
posals, and  suggested,  as  a  counter  projet,  a  plan  of 
common  police  for  the  surveillance  of  the  trade,  by 
which  the  several  powers  would  be  immediately 
informed  of  the  transactions  of  each  other  with  re- 
spect to  it,  and  of  all  abuses  practised  within  the 
limits  of  their  respective  jurisdictions. 

The  proposal  to  declare  the  trade  piracy  under 
the  law  of  nations  was  also  rejected  by  the  three 
great  powers,  Austria,  Prussia,  and  Russia.  "  It 
was  evident,"  said  the  latter,  •*  that  the  general  pro- 
mulgation of  such  a  law  could  not  take  place  until 
Portugal  had  totally  renounced  the  trade." 

The  above  three  powers  also  concurred  with 
France  in  rejecting  the  British  proposal  as  to  the 
right  of  visitation  and  search.  The  answer  of  the 
Russian  Plenipotentiary,  Count  Nesselrode,  stated 
that  it  appeared  to  the  Russian  cabinet,  beyond  all 
doubt,  that  there  were  some  states  whom  no  consi- 
deration would  induce  to  submit  their  navigation 
to  a  principle  of  such  great  importance  as  the  right 


44 


I 


of  visitation  and  search  {droit  de  visile.)  He, 
therefore,  proposed,  in  lieu  of  the  British  pr(yet, 
the  establishment  of  "  an  institution,  situated  at  a 
central  point  on  the  western  coast  of  Africa,  in  the 
formation  of  which  all  the  states  of  Christendom 
should  take  a  part.  This  institution  being  declared 
for  ever  neutral,  separated  from  all  political  and 
local  interests,  like  the  fraternal  and  Christian 
alliance,  of  which  it  would  be  a  practical  manifesta- 
tion, would  pursue  the  single  object  of  strictly 
maintaining  the  execution  of  the  laws.  The  in- 
stitution would  consist  of  a  maritime  force,  com- 
posed of  an  adequate  number  of  ships  of  war  ap- 
propriated to  the  service ;  of  a  judicial  power,  which 
should  adjudicate  on  all  criminal  offences  relating 
to  the  trade,  according  to  a  code  of  legislation  on 
the  subject  established  by  the  common  wisdom; 
of  a  supreme  council,  in  which  would  reside  the 
authority  of  the  institution,  which  would  regulate 
the  operations  of  the  maritime  force,  would  revise 
the  sentences  of  the  federal  tribunals,  would  cause 
them  to  be  executed,  would  inspect  all  details,  and 
would  render  an  account  of  its  administration  to 
future  European  conferences.  The  right  of  visiting 
and  detaining  for  trial  would  be  granted  to  this  in- 
stitution, as  the  means  of  fulfilling  the  end  of  its 
establishment;  and,  perhaps,  no  maritime  nation 
would  refuse  to  submit  its  flag  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  police,  exercised  in  a  limited  and  clearly  de- 
fined manner,  and  by  a  power  too  feeble  to  be 
abused,  too  disinterested  on  all  maritime  and  com- 


45 

mercial  questions,  and,  above  all,  too  widely  com- 
bined in  its  elements  not  to  observe  a  severe  but  im- 
partial justice  towards  all."* 

It  may  easily  be  anticipated  by  the  reader  that 
neither  the  French  nor  the  Russian  substitute  for 
the  British  projet  was  acceptable  to  Lord  Castle- 
reagh.  He  proposed  a  counter  prcjet  limiting  the 
exercise  of  the  right  of  search  demanded  to  a  term 
of  years.  "He  flatters  himself,"  says  the  thir- 
teenth Report  of  the  African  Institution,  "  that  he 
has  made  a  considerable  impression  in  removing 
the  strong  repugnance  which  was  at  first  felt  to  the 

measure."! 

All  that  could  be  obtained  from  the  Congress 
of  Aix-la-Chapelle  was  a  declaration  that  "  the 
negro  slave-trade  was  an  odious  crime,  the  dis- 
grace of  civilized  nations,  and  that  it  was  a  matter 
of  urgency  to  put  an  end  for  ever  to  this  scourge 
which  had  so  long  desolated  Africa,  degraded 
Europe,  and  afflicted  humanity."^ 

The  next  we  hear  of  this  attempt  to  incorporate 
into  the  maritime  code  of  nations  "  a  principle  of 
such  great  importance,"  as  it  was  termed  in  the 
above  note  of  the  Russian  plenipotentiary  at  Aix- 
la-Chapelle,  was  at  the  Congress  of  Verona.  In  the 
despatch  addressed  on  the  1st  of  October,  1822,  by 
Mr.  Canning  (who  had  become  Secretary  of  State 


*  Thirteenth  Report  of  the  directors  of  the  African  Institution, 
pp.  23-25. 

t  Report,  pp.  1-3 

X  Fourteenth  Report  of  the  Directors  of  the  African  Institu- 
tion, p.  1. 


46 


for  Foreign  Affairs  in  tlie  place  of  the  Marquess  of 
Londonderry,)  to  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  British 
Ambassador  at  the  Congress,  it  was  stated  that 
whatever  might  be  the  advantage  or  disadvantage  to 
the  British  colonies,  it  was  much  to  be  feared  that, 
to  Africa,  the  abolition  by  Great  Britain  had  been 
an  injury  rather  than  a  gain.  The  slave-trade,  so 
far  from  being  diminished  in  extent  by  the  exact 
amount  of  what  was  in  former  times  the  British  de- 
mand, was,  upon  the  whole,  perhaps,  greater  than 
at  the  period  when  that  demand  was  the  highest ; 
and  the  aggregate  of  human  sufferings,  and  the 
waste  of  human  life  in  the  transportation  of  slaves 
from  the  coast  of  Africa  to  the  colonies,  were  in- 
creased in  a  ratio  enormously  greater  than  the  in- 
crease of  positive  numbers.  Unhappily,  it  could  not 
be  denied  that  their  very  attempts  at  prevention, 
imperfect  as  they  yet  were,  under  the  treaties  which 
then  authorized  their  interference,  tended  to  the 
augmentation  of  the  evil.  The  dread  of  detection 
suggested  expedients  of  concealment  productive  of 
the  most  dreadful  sufferings  to  a  cargo,  with  respect 
to  which  it  hardly  ever  seems  to  occur  to  its  re- 
morseless owners  that  it  consists  of  sentient  beings. 
The  numbers  put  on  board  in  each  venture  were  so 
far  from  being  proportioned  to  the  proper  capacity 
of  the  vessel,  that  the  probable  profits  of  each 
voyage  were  notoriously  calculated  only  on  the  sur- 
vivors ;  and  the  mortality  was  accordingly  frightful, 
to  a  degree  unknown,  since  the  attention  of  mankind 
had  been  first  called  to  the  horrors  of  this  traffic. 
Mr.  Secretary  Canning  added,  that  to  these  enor- 


47 


i 


inous  and,  he  feared,  even  growing  evils,  they  had 
nothing  to  oppose  but  the  declaration  of  the  Con- 
gress of  Vienna ;  their  treaties  with  Spain  and  the 
Netherlands,  abolishing  the  trade  definitively  and 
totally,  and  that  with  Portugal  restricting  the  Portu- 
guese slave-trade  to  the  south  of  the  line.  It  was 
the  truth  (however  lamentable  or  incredible)  that, 
by  the  testimony  of  the  French  Government  itself, 
there  was  no  public  feeling  on  this  subject  in  France 
which  responded,  in  the  smallest  degree,  to  the  sen- 
timent prevalent  in  England;  that  no  credit  was 
given  to  the  people  or  the  legislature  of  that  coun- 
try for  sincerity  in  those  sentiments;  that  their 
anxiety  on  the  matter  was  attributed  to  a  calcula- 
tion of  national  interest ;  and  that  a  new  law,  founded 
on  a  proposition  from  England  for  new  restrictions 
on  the  illicit  slave-trade,  would  at  this  moment  be 
thrown  out  in  the  legislature  of  France. 

The  principal  advantage,  then,  to  be  derived 
'rom  the  union  of  sovereigns  at  Verona,  according 
to  Mr.  Secretary  Canning,  appeared  to  resolve 
themselves  into  the  following : — 

1.  An  engagement  on  the  part  of  the  Continental 
sovereigns  to  mark  their  abhorrence  of  this  accursed 
traffic,  by  refusing  admission  into  their  dominions 
of  the  produce  of  colonies  belonging  to  the  powers 
who  had  not  abolished,  or  who  notoriously  conti- 
nued, the  slave-trade. 

2.  A  declaration  in  the  names,  if  possible,  of  the 
whole  alliance ;  but,  if  France  shall  decline  being  a 
party  to  it,  then  in  the  names  of  the  three  other 
powers  (Austria,  Prussia,  and  Russia)  renewing 


48 


•  1 


the  denimciatiou  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  and 
exhorting  the  maritime  powers  who  had  abolished 
the  slave-trade  to  concert  measures  among  them- 
selves for  proclaiming  and  treating  it  as  piracy, 
with  a  view  of  founding  upon  the  aggregate  of  such 
separate  engagements  between  state  and  state  a  ge- 
neral engagement  to  be  incorporated  into  the  public 
law  of  the  civilized  world. 

Such  a  declaration^  it  was  added,  as  it  assumed 
no  binding  force,  would  not  be  obnoxious  to  the 
charges  which  would  attach  to  the  introduction  of  a 
new  public  law  by  an  incompetent  authority;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  its  moral  influence  might  mate- 
rially aid  the  British  cabinet  in  its  negotiations  with 
other  maritime  states.  It  could  have  no  difficulty 
in  consenting  that  subjects  of  the  United  Kingdom 
found  trading  in  slaves  should  be  treated  as  pirates, 
upon  a  reciprocal  admission  of  the  same  principle 
by  other  powers. 

All  the  powers  assembled  in  the  Congress  united 
in  declaring  their  continual  adherence  to  the  prin- 
ciples in  favour  of  which  they  had  pronounced 
themselves  since  the  Congress  of  Vienna ;  and  it 
was  agreed  to  record  anew  these  principles  by  a 
declaration  analogous  to  that  of  the  8th  February, 
1816.  But  the  particular  practical  measures  pro- 
posed by  the  British  plenipotentiary  to  give  effect 
to  this  renewed  profession  of  principles,  were  taken 
ad  referendum  by  the  other  plenipotentiaries,  except 
those  of  France,  for  the  farther  deliberations  of  their 
respective  courts. 

The  plenipotentiaries  of  Prance,  MM.  de  Cha- 


49 


teaubriand  and  de  Caraman,  explicitly  rejected  these 
measures  in  a  detailed  answer  to  the  Duke  of 
Wellington's  memorandum,  in  which,  after  avowing 
that  "  the  French  Government  participated  in  the 
solicitude  of  the  British  Government  to  suppress 
a  traffic  equally  reprehensible  in  the  eyes  both  of 
God  and  man,"  they  proceeded  to  develope  the 
causes  which  rendered  public  opinion  less  decided 
oii  this  subject  in  France  than  in  Great  Britain. 
A  people  so  humane,  so  generous,  and  so  disinte- 
rested as  that  of  France — a  people  always  ready  to 
furnish  the  example  of  submitting  to  sacrifices — 
deserved  to  have  explained  what  might  appear  an 
inexplicable  anomaly  in  their  character. 

The  massacre  of  the  colonists  of  St.  Domingo, 
and  the  burning  of  their  habitations,  left,  in  the 
first  instance,  painful  recollections  among  those 
families  who  lost  relations  in  those  sanguinary 
revolutions.  It  might  be  permitted  to  call  to  mind 
these  calamities  of  the  whites,  when  the  British 
memorandum  painted  with  so  much  truth  and 
force  of  colouring,  the  sufferings  of  the  blacks,  in 
order  to  prove  that  every  thing  which  excites  pity 
naturally  influences  public  opinion.  It  was  evi- 
dent that  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  would 
have  been  less  popular  in  England,  if  it  had  been 
preceded  by  the  ruin  and  murder  of  the  British 
colonists  in  the  West  Indies. 

It  might  farther  be  remarked  that  the  abolition  of 
this  traffic  was  not  decreed  in  France  by  an  act 
of  national  legislation  discussed  in  the  Tribune. 
7 


iiii 


no 


It  was  the  result  of  a  stipulation  in  tlie  treaty  by 
which  P'rance  had  atoned  for  her  victories.  From 
that  moment  the  measure  was  coupled  in  the  eye 
of  the  multitude  with  foreign  considerations,  merely 
because  they  believed  it  to  be  imposed  upon  them ; 
and  it,  therefore,  became  subjected  to  that  un- 
popularity which  must  ever  attend  measures  of 
compulsion.  The  same  thing  would  have  hap- 
pened in  any  country  where  pul)lic  spirit  and 
a  proper  degree  of  national  pride  are  found  to 
exist. 

A  motion  in  the  British  Parliament,  ever  ho- 
nourable to  its  philanthropic  author,  was  finally 
crowned  with  success ;  but  this  triumph  was 
achieved  after  repeated  rejections  of  the  proposed 
mec  .ure,  although  supported  by  one  of  the  greate 
ministers  England  ever  produced.  During  these 
protracted  debates,  public  opinion  had  time  to 
ripen  and  to  come  to  an  ultimate  decision.  The 
commercial  interest,  which  foresaw  the  result,  had 
time  to  take  its  precautions ;  a  number  of  negroes, 
exceeding  the  wants  of  the  colonists,  were  trans- 
ported to  the  British  islands  ;  and  successive  gene- 
rations of  slaves  were  thus  provided  to  fill  up  the 
void  to  be  occasioned  by  the  abolition  of  the  traffic 
when  it  should  take  place. 

No  such  advantage  was  possessed  by  France. 
The  first  convention  on  this  subject  between  France 
and  Great  Britain  after  the  restoration,  recognised 
the  necessity  of  acting  with  prudent  caution  in  a 
matter  of  a  nature  so  complex.     An  additional  arti- 


1 

i 


61 


cle  to  the  Convention  allowed  a  delay  of  five  years 
for  the  entire  abolition  of  the  traffic. 

It  was  farther  stated  in  this  paper,  that  the 
French  Government  was  determined  to  pursue 
without  relaxation  the  prosecution  of  the  parties 
engaged  in  this  barbarous  traffic.  Numerous  con- 
dentnations  had  already  taken  place,  and  the  tribu- 
nals had  severely  punished  wherever  the  guilt  of 
the  accused  was  ascertained.  The  British  memo- 
randum stated  that  "  it  would  be  dreadful  that  the 
necessity  of  destroying  human  beings  had  become 
the  consequence  of  that  of  concealing  a  traffic  pro- 
scribed ^  y  the  laws."  This  too  just  remark  proved 
that  the  French  law  had  been  rigorously  executed; 
and  the  cruel  precautions  taken  by  the  violators  of 
the  treaty  in  order  to  secrete  their  victims  proved, 
in  a  striking  manner,  the  vigilance  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

In  respect  to  one  of  the  particular  measures  pro- 
posed by  Great  Britain,  that  of  the  introduction  of  a 
new  public  law  declaring  the  offence  of  being  en- 
gaged in  the  slave-trade  to  be  piracy  under  the  law 
of  nations,  the  French  plenipotentiaries  declared, 
that  "  a  deliberation  tending  to  oblige  all  govern- 
ments to  apply  to  the  slave-trade  the  punishment 
inflicted  on  the  crime  of  piracy,  could  not,  in  their 
opinion,  be  within  the  province  of  a  diplomatic  con- 
ference." 

In  reply  to  this  suggestion,  the  Duke  of  Welling- 
ton stated,  in  verbal  conference,  that  his  proposition 
had  no  other  view  than  to  engage  all  the  maritime 


m 


la 


1: 


powers  who  had  abolished  the  slave-trade  to  con- 
cert among  themselves  the  measures  to  be  adopted, 
in  order  to  declare  this  traffic  piracy,  and  to  punish 
it  accordingly. 

M.  de  Chateaubriand  rejoined,  that  the  French 
plenipotentiaries  had  perfectly  understood  that  the 
British  memorandum  required  each  government;, 
separately,  to  pass  a  law  assimilating  the  slave-trade 
to  piracy ;  but  that  they  conld  not  sign  a  declara- 
tion in  which  this  desire  should  be  expressed,  be- 
cause they  could  not  undertake  to  prescribe  to  their 
government  the  title,  form,  tenor,  or  extent  of  any 
laws. 

The  discussions  at  the  Congress  of  Verona,  thus 
resulted  in  a  mere  repetition  of  the  barren  denuncia- 
tions of  the  Congress  of  Vienna  and  that  cf  Aix-la- 
Chapelle.  The  three  Northern  powers  of  the  Con- 
tinent would  not  listen  to  the  British  proposition  to 
grant  a  monopoly  in  their  markets  of  the  colonial 
products  of  such  countries  as  had  prohibited  the 
slave-trade,  nor  to  introduce  a  new  public  law  of 
Europe  by  which  the  offence  of  engaging  in  the 
trade  should  be  considered  as  piracy  under  the  law 
of  nations.  France  peremptorily  r^^fused  to  take 
any  new  measures  to  suppress  the  traffic. 

Such  is  the  account  given  of  these  transactions  in 
the  papers  presented  to  the  British  Parliament. 
But  we  are  told  by  M.  de  Chateaubriand,  in  his 
"History  of  the  Congress  of  Verona,"  that  in  the 
memoir  presented  by  the  Duke  of  Wellington  under 
date  of  the  24th  November,  1822,  the  British  cabi- 
net expressed  its  regret  that  France  should  be  the 


68 


only  one  of  the  great  maritime  powers*  which  still 
refused  to  accede  to  the  arrangements  concluded  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  other  States,  with  the  view 
of  conferring  upon  certain  ships  of  war  of  the  con- 
tracting parties  the  limited  right  of  search  and  con- 
fiscation against  merchant-vessels  engaged  in  the 
slave-trade.  M.  de  Chateaubriand  answered  this  in- 
timation by  stating  that  the  French  Government 
could  never  consent  to  acknowledge  the  right  or 
search.  The  national  character,  both  of  the  French 
and  English  people,  was  opposed  to  its  exercise, 
which,  as  between  them,  would  be  attended  with 
the  most  fatal  consequences;  and  if  proofs  were 
wanting  in  support  of  this  opinion,  they  would  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  during  that  very  year  French 
blood  had  flowed  on  the  coast  of  Africa.  France  re- 
cognised the  freedom  of  the  seas  for  all  foreign  flags 
to  whatever  lawful  power  they  might  belong :  she 
only  contended  for  that  independence,  in  respect  to 
herself,  which  she  respected  in  others,  and  which 
was  consistent  with  her  national  dignity.f 

Great  Britain  could  hardly  expect  to  obtain 
from  the  Congress  of  Verona,  at  that  period,  this 
so  much-coveted  boon,  nor  any  of  the  other  con- 
cessions demanded  in  respect  to  a  matter  in  which, 
though  the  interests  of  humanity  v^sre  deeply  con- 
cerned, the  Continental  powers  I'crceived,  that  her 
colonial  and  commercial  interests  ;vere  also  in- 
volved in  the  prosecution  of  the  same  cause.    We 

*  It  seems  that  Spain  and  Portugal  were  "  great  maritime  pow- 
ers," '.vtiilst  Russia  and  the  United  States  were  not. 
t  Histoire  du  Congres  dc  Verone,  torn.  i. 


54 


III       n 


,i  :) 


1   I 
i    I 


say  that  Great  Britain  conld  hardly  expect  to  ob- 
tain these  concessions  from  the  European  Congress 
at  that  period,  because  she  was  strenuously  opposed 
to  the  main  object  for  which  it  had  been  assembled ; 
that  is  to  say,  in  order  to  countenance  the  armed 
interference  of  France  in  the  internal  affairs  of 
Spain.  The  British  cabinet  had  been  gradually 
detaching  itself,  ever  since  the  Congress  of  Troppau 
and  that  of  Laybach,  from  th  j  alliance  between  the 
great  Continental  powers,  so  far  as  that  alliance  was 
founded  upon  the  claim  of  a  general  right  to  inter- 
fere in  the  internal  transactions  of  other  states,  in 
order  to  prevent  revolutionary  changes  in  their 
forms  of  government  or  reigning  dynasties.*  This 
gradual  separation  from  the  Continental  powers,  on 
a  point  of  policy  so  vitally  important  to  them,  be- 
gun by  Lord  Castlereagh  (afterwards  Marquess  of 
Londonderry,)  under  the  administration  of  the  Earl 
of  Liverpool,  was  continued  and  completed  under 
that  of  Mr.  Canning.  Great  Britain  did  not  oppose 
by  force,  as  the  latter  minister  declared  she  might 
have  done,  the  armed  interference  of  France  in  the 
internal  affairs  of  Spain ;  in  consequence  of  which 
the  constitution  of  the  Cortes  was  overthrown,  Fer- 
dinand Vn.  restored  to  the  plenitude  of  his  royal 
authority,  and  British  influence  destroyed  for  a 
time  in  that  part  of  the  Peninsula.  But  she  ac- 
knowledged the  independence  of  the  Spanish  colo- 
nies on  the  American  continent,  and,  as  Mr.  Can- 


*  See  Lord  Castlereagh's  Circular  Despatch  of  the  19th  of  Janu- 
ary, 1821.  ("  British  Annual  Register,"  vol.  Ixii.  pt.  ii.  p.  737.) 


55 


ning  afterwards  said,  "called  into  existence  a  new 
world  in  order  to  redress  the  balance  of  the  old."* 
This  decisive  measure,  followed  by  the  armed  in- 
terference of  Great  Britain  in  the  internal  affairs  of 
Portugal  in  1826,  disturbed  the  intimacy  of  her 
relations  with  the  great  Powers  of  the  Continent, 
and  rendered  them  still  less  disposed  to  yield  any 
point  of  peculiar  interest  to  her  without  adequate 
equivalents.  This  unaccommodating  disposition 
continued,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  until  the  French 
revolution  of  1830,  by  separating  for  a  time  France 
under  her  new  dynasty  of  the  house  of  Orleans, 
from  the  general  European  alliance,  enabled  Great 
Britain  to  obtain  from  that  power  the  concession  of 
the  right  of  search,  which  was  yielded  to  the  influ- 
ence of  those  philanthropic  sentiments  and  unsus- 
^pecting  confidence  in  British  friendship  which 
marked  that  era.  The  treaty  of  the  15th  July, 
1840,  relating  to  the  affairs  of  the  Levant,  once  more 
attracted  Great  Britain  withi  he  sphere  of  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Northern  power !> ,  and  prepared  the 
way  for  the  treaty  of  the  20th  of  De< '  inber,  1841, 
by  which  the  right  of  search  was  at  last  'onceded 
by  those  powers  who  had  been  formerly  the  great 
champions  of  neutral  maritime  rights.  By  what 
circumstances  France  was  induced  to  accede  to 
this  compact,  it  would  be  beside  our  purpose  to  in- 
quire. 
In  the  mean  time  the  slave-trade  continued  to 


*  Mr.  Canning's  Speech  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  the 
British  armed  intervention  in  the  affairs  of  Portugal,  11  th  Decem- 
ber, 1826.  («  British  Annual  Register,"  vol.  Ixviii.  p.  192.) 


56 


I      I 


ii    H! 


li  i    i' 


be  carried  on  to  an  enormous  extent,  and  with 
circumstances  of  cruelty  augmented  by  the  very 
measures  adopted  for  its  suppression.  This  noto- 
rious fact  is  attested  by  the  British  diplomatic  cor- 
respondence upon  this  subject,  by  the  Reports  of 
the  African  Institution  in  London,  and  by  those 
made  from  the  committees  of  the  American  Con- 
gress and  British  Parliament.  No  little  proportion 
of  this  traffic  in  human  flesh  and  blood  was  carried 
on  under  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  flags  with 
British  capital,  on  British  account,  and  in  vessels 
built  in  London  and  Liverpool.*  The  trade  had 
been  nominally  prohibited  by  Spain  to  her  subjects 
from  the  31st  of  May,  1820,  on  all  parts  of  the  Afri- 
can coast,  both  south  and  north  of  the  equinoctial 
line;  but  Portugal  still  continued  to  cling  to  that 
portion  she  had  reserved  south  of  the  equator.  In 
1821,  there  was  not  a  sii:orle  flag  of  any  European 
state  that  could  lawfully  cover  the  traffic  to  the 
north  of .  the  equator;  yet  down  to  the  year  1830, 
and  we  may  add  down  to  the  pre^^ent  time,  the 
fraudulent  importation  of  African  slaves  actually 
continued,  if  it  was  not  openly  countenanced,  from 
the  Rio  de  la  Plata  to  the  Amazon,  and  throughout 
the  whole  West  Indian  archipelago.f    The  com- 

*  In  the  debate  i.?  the  Houso  of  Comiiions  on  the  9th  Febru- 
ary, 1818,  Lord  Castlereagh  said,  "  It  would  be  a  great  error  to 
believe  that  the  reproach  of  carrying  on  the  slave-trade  illegally 
belonged  only  to  the  other  countries.  In  numberless  instances, 
he  was  sorry  to  say,  it  had  come  to  his  knowledge  that  British 
subjects  were  indirectly  and  largely  engaged." 

t  Report  of  the  House  of  Represent  ives  in  the  American 
Congress,  16th  February,  1825. 


67 


mercial  cupidity  of  individuals,  the  financial  and 
political  interests  of  States,  and  the  inveterate  ha- 
bits of  ages,  by  which  Africa  has  been  condemned 
to  barbarism  from  the  earliest  records  of  history, 
were  too  powerful  to  be  overcome  by  the  mere  ope- 
ration of  laws  and  treaties,  aided  by  the  zealous 
efforts  of  benevolent  individuals  and  associations, 
within  the  short  compass  of  a  few  brief  years. 
"Man,"  says  Sir  Thomas  Fowell  Buxton,  "has 
ever  been  the  great  staple  article  of  exportation 
from  Africa,  by  which  chiefly  her  inhabitants  have 
acquired  the  luxuries  of  civilized  life."  That  most 
zealous,  constant,  and  enlightened  advocate  of  the 
slave-trade  abolition  has  recently  retired  from  the 
contest  in  disgust  l  d  despair  (so  far  as  the  means 
hitherto  pursued  for  its  execution  are  concerned ;) 
after  having  conclusively  shown  that  what  was  true 
in  1830  remains  true  to  this  day,  and  that  no  actual 
progress  has  been  made  in  the  suppression  of  the 
tra£&c,  which,  on  the  contrary,  has  rapidly  increased 
since  the  abolition,  both  in  the  numbers  of  its  vic- 
tims and  the  .um  total  of  their  sufferings.*    This 

*  Sir  T.  F.  Buxton,  in  his  recent  "  History  of  the  Abolition  of 
the  Slave-Trade,"  has,  in  our  opinion,  established,  from  conclu- 
sive testimony  and  fair  deductions,  that  more  than  150,000  ne- 
groes are  now  transported  across  the  ocean  from  the  eastern  and 
western  coasts  of  Africa;*  that  the  arms  and  other  articles  pecu- 
liarly adapted  to  the  slave-trade  are  still  manufactured  on  the  most 
extensive  scale  in  Great  Britain;  that  the  mortality  of  the  middle 


*  Whilst  Mr.  Pitt  and  Mr.  Fox  computed  the  numbers  carried  over  in 
1793  at  only  80,000. 

8 


5S 


h 


i 


.11 

1 1 


I  1     ■( 


should  not,  perhaps,  discourage  more  ardent  and 
energetic  partisans  of  the  measure,  if  any  such 
there  bo  ;  but,  at  least,  it  should  render  them  cau- 
tious in  selecting  the  means  by  which  they  would 
seek  to  attain  an  object  which  has  hitherto  eluded 
their  grasp,  and,  like  the  mirage  of  the  African  de- 
sert, fled  before  them  as  they  seemed  to  approach 
its  borders.     But  above  all,  they  should  take  care 

passage  is  frightfully  augmented  by  the  very  precautions  which 
are  rendered  necessary  to  escape  from  the  vigilance  of  the  cruisers: 
?nd  whilst  double  the  number  of  human  victims  are  sacrificed  to 
this  accursed  traffic  than  at  the  time  when  Clarkson  and  Wilber- 
force  began  their  philanthropic  labours,  each  individual  sufTers  ten- 
fold more  from  the  contracted  space  in  which  they  are  stowed, 
every  thing  being  sacrificed  to  fast  sailing.  He  considers  the  mea- 
sure of  abolition  as  having  totally  failed,  not  for  want  of  energy 
and  perseverance  in  its  execution,  but  from  a  total  mistake  as  to 
the  true  means  of  accomplishing  the  object.  His  opinion  is  that 
Great  Britain  will  never  be  able  to  obtain  the  assent  of  all  nations 
to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  search  for  this  object;  and  even  if 
she  did  obtain  the  assent  of  all,  the  advantage  would  be  illusory. 
That  even  if  to  this  concession  were  superadded  the  introduction 
of  a  new  public  law,  by  which  the  traffic  should  be  denounced 
and  punished  as  piracy  under  the  law  of  nations,  it  would  be  all 
in  vain;  the  enormous  profits  (more  than  fifteen  per  cent)  made  by 
it  aflTording  a  premium  which  counteracts  every  precaution  which 
can  possibly  be  taken  to  execute  the  prohibitory  laws  and  treaties. 
He,  therefore,  concludes  that  the  trade  will  never  be  destroyed  by 
the  means  heretofore  devised.  The  African,  until  civilized,  will 
never  cease  to  desire  arms,  ardent  spirits,  and  other  luxuries,  nor 
to  purchase  them  in  exchange  for  men,  which  have  ever  been  the 
great  staple  article  of  exportation  from  that  continent.  The  true 
means  of  repression  to  be  adopted  are  to  civilize,  and  Christianize, 
and  colonize  Africa,  by  which  the  native  chieftains  would  cease  to 
have  an  interest  in  dealing  in  human  flesh. 


59 


that  among  these  means  be  not  included  an  inva- 
sion of  the  sovereign  rights  of  foreign  states,  as  in- 
dependent of  Great  Britain  as  Great  Britain  is  of 
them.  They  should  remember  that  their  greatest 
civilian  has  said,  speaking  of  this  very  subject,  that 
"  no  one  nation  has  a  right  to  force  the  way  to  the 
liberation  of  Africa  by  trampling  on  the  indepen- 
dence of  other  states ;  or  to  procure  an  eminent 
good  by  means  that  are  unlawful ;  or  to  press  for- 
ward to  a  great  principle  by  breaking  through  other 
principles  that  stand  in  the  way."* 

We  have  already  observed  that  so  long  as  the 
European  war  continued,  the  British  laws,  abolish- 
ing the  slave-trade  as  to  their  own  subjects,  were 
executed  by  means  of  the  belligerent  right  of  visita- 
tion and  search,  so  far  as  the  neutral  flag  tvas  used 
to  cover  the  illicit  traffic  still  carried  on  with  British 
capital  and  on  British  account.  Vessels  captured 
and  brought  in  for  adjudication  under  the  exercise 
of  this  right,  though  they  might  not  prove  to  belong 
to  an  enemy,  were  condemned,  according  to  the  well- 
known  fiction  and  formula  of  the  Prize  Courts,  as 
enemy's  property,  in  case  of  proof  that  they  had 
fraudulently  assumed  the  neutral  flag  in  order  to 
cover  British  interests  in  a  traffic  interdicted  by  the 
British  Parliament  to  those  who  were  amenable  to 
its  laws.  On  principle,  it  would  seem  that  the  bel- 
ligerent right  of  capture  and  condemnation  in  this 


*  See  the  judgment  of  Sir  William  Scott  (since  Lord  Stowell) 
in  the  case  of  the  French  slave-trade  ship  le  Louis  (Dodson's 
"Admiralty  Reports,"  vol.  ii.  p.  238.) 


rr 


60 


■li: 


respect  could  not  be  carried  farther  than  thus  inci- 
dentally to  execute  the  municipal  statutes  of  the  bel- 
ligerent state,  by  rejecting  the  claim  of  a  subject  of 
that  state,  whose  property  should  be  taken  in  vio- 
lating its  revenue  laws,  or  laws  of  trade,  and  brought 
in  for  adjudication  in  the  Admiralty  Courts  of  his 
own  country.  B  ut  a  case  occurred  in  1 8 1 0,  in  which 
the  doctrine  was  carried  much  farther,  and  extended 
to  property  belonging  to  a  neutral  state,  and  taken 
in  the  act  of  violating  the  municipal  laws  of  the 
owner's  country.  Such  was  the  case  of  the  Amadie, 
an  American  vessel  employed  in  transporting  slaves 
from  the  coast  of  Africa  to  a  Spanish-American  co- 
lony. The  vessel  was  captured,  with  the  slaves  on 
board,  by  a  British  cruiser ;  and  the  vessel  and  cargo 
condemned  to  the  use  of  the  captors  in  the  Vice-Ad- 
miralty Court  at  Tortola.  On  appeal  to  the  Lords 
of  Appeal  in  Prize  and  Plantation  Causes,  the  sen- 
tence was  affirmed.  The  judgment  of  the  appellant 
Court  was  delivered  by  Sir  William  Grant  in  the 
following  terms : — 

"This  ship  must  be  considered  as  being  employed, 
at  the  time  of  capture,  in  carrying  slaves  from  the 
coast  of  Africa  to  a  Spanish  colony.  We  think  that 
this  was  evidently  the  original  plan  and  purpose  of 
the  voyage,  notwithstanding  the  pretence  set  up  to 
veil  the  true  intention.  The  claimant,  however, 
who  is  an  American,  complains  of  the  capture,  and 
demands  from  us  the  restitution  of  property  of  which 
he  alleges  that  he  has  been  unjustly  dispossessed. 
In  all  the  former  cases  of  this  kind  which  have  come 
before  this  Court,  the  slave-trade  was  liable  to  con- 


61 


siderations  very  different  from  those  which  belong 
to  it  now.  It  had,  at  that  time,  been  prohibited  (so 
far  as  respected  carrying  slaves  to  the  colonies  of 
foreign  nations)  by  America,  but  by  our  own  laws 
it  was  still  allowed.  It  appeared  to  us,  therefore, 
difficult  to  consider  the  prohibitory  law  of  America 
in  any  other  light  than  as  one  of  those  municipal 
regulations  of  a  foreign  state  of  which  this  Court 
could  not  take  any  cognizance.  But  by  the  altera- 
tion which  has  since  taken  place,  the  question  stands 
on  different  grounds,  and  is  open  to  the  application 
of  very  different  principles.  The  slave-trade  has 
since  been  totally  abolished  by  this  conntr),  and  our 
legislature  has  pronounced  it  to  be  contrary  to  the 
principles  of  justice  and  humanity.  Whatever  we 
might  think  as  individuals  before,  we  could  not,  sit- 
ting as  judges  in  a  British  court  of  justice,  regard 
the  trade  in  that  light  while  our  own  laws  permitted 
it.  But  we  can  now  assert  that  this  trade  cannot, 
abstractedly  speaking,  have  a  legitimate  existence. 
"  When  I  say  abstractedly  speakings  I  mean  that 
this  country  has  no  right  to  control  any  foreign  le- 
gislature that  may  think  fit  to  dissent  from  this  doc- 
trine, and  to  permit  to  its  own  subjects  the  prosecu- 
tion of  this  trade ;  but  we  have  a  right  to  affirm  that 
prima  facie  the  trade  is  illegal,  and  thus  to  throw 
on  claimants  the  burden  of  proof  that  in  respect  of 
them,  by  the  authority  of  their  own  laws,  it  is  other- 
wise. As  the  case  now  stands,  we  think  we  are  en- 
titled to  say  that  a  claimant  can  have  nc  right, 
upon  principles  of  universal  law,  to  claim  the  resti- 
tution in  a  Prize  Court  of  human  beings  carried  as 


i 


i  ii 


1 


62 

slaves.  Me  must  show  some  right  that  has  been 
violated  by  the  capture,  some  property  of  which  he 
has  been  dispossessed  to  which  he  ought  to  be  re- 
stored. In  this  case  the  laws  of  the  claimant's 
country  allow  of  no  property  such  as  he  claims. 
There  can,  therefore,  be  no  right  to  restitution. 
The  consequence  is  that  the  judgment  must  be  af- 
firmed."* 

It  may  seem  amazing  that  such  a  judicial  mind 
as  that  of  Sir  William  Grant,  at  once  acute  and  dis- 
criminating, whose  clear  judgment  was  not  likely 
to  be  disturbed  by  passionate  sympathy  in  the 
cause  of  abolition  should  have  arrived  at  such  a 
conclusion  from  such  premises.  What  a  rapid 
stride  must  public  opinion  have  taken  in  England, 
since  the  time  when  she  extorted  from  Spain  at  the 
peace  of  Utrecht  the  Assiento  contract,  securing 
the  monopoly  of  the  slave-trade  with  the  Spanish 
colonies,  "as  the  whole  price  of  the  victories  of 
Hamillies  and  Blenheim ;"  when  she  "  higgled  at 
Aix-la-Chapelle  for  four  years  longer  of  this  exclu- 
sive trade ;"  when  "  in  the  treaty  of  Madrid,  she 
clung  to  the  last  remains  of  the  Assiento  contract ;" 
and,  to  come  nearer  the  moment  this  anomalous 
judgment  was  pronounced,  when  Lord  Eldon,  op- 
posing the  abolition  as  the  leader  of  the  court-party 
in  Parliament  in  1807,  entered  into  a  review  of  the 
measures  adopted  by  England  respecting  the  trade, 
which,  he  contended,  "  Had  been  sanctioned  bypar- 


*  Actor's  ♦'  Admiralty  Reports,"  vol.  i.  p.  240. — Fifth  Report 
of  the  Directors  of  the  African  Institution,  pp.  11,  13. 


■^^^j^ggfg^ 


63 

liaments  in  which  sat  tho  wisest  lawyers,  the  most 
learned  divines,  and  the  most  excellent  statesmen ;" 
when  Lord  Hawksbury  (afterwards  Earl  of  Liver- 
pool) moved  that  the  words,  "  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  of  justice  and  humanity,"  should  be 
struck  out  of  the  preamble  to  the  Slave-trade  Abo- 
lition-Bill; when  the  Earl  of  Westmoreland  de- 
clared that,  "  Though  he  should  see  the  Presby- 
terian and  the  prelate,  the  Methodist  and  field- 
preacher,  the  Jacobin  and  murderer,  unite  in  favour 
of  the  measure  of  abolition,  he  would  raise  his  voice 
against  it  in  parliament  !"* — what  a  rapid  stride,  we 
repeat,  must  public  opinion  have  taken  in  England 
in  the  brief  interval  between  these  speeches  in  the 
House  of  Lords  and  the  delivery  of  the  above  judg- 
ment at  the  Cock-pit,  for  such  a  self-balanced  mind 
as  that  of  Sir  William  Grant  to  be  thrown  from  its 
centre  by  the  abstractions  which  form  the  basis  of 
his  judgment,  and  by  which  the  high  Court  in  which 
he  presided  was  induced  to  usurp  the  illegitimate 
power  of  executing  the  penal  laws  of  another  inde- 
pendent country ! 

In  the  case  of  the  Fortuna,  determined  in  1811, 
in  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty,  on  appeal  from 
the  inferior  court,  Lord  Stowell,  with  evident 
reluctance  and  against  the  manifest  convictions 
of  his  own  superior  mind,  condemned  another 
American  vessel  with  her  cargo  as  destined  to  be 
employed  in  the  African  slave-trade.  In  delivering 
his  judgment  in  this  case,  he  stated,  that  an  Ameri- 


Hansard's  "  Parliamentary  Debates,"  vol.  viii. 


T 


I 


64 


can  ship,  quasi  A  men  ran,  was  entitled,  upon  proof, 
to  immediate  restitution;  but  she  might  forfeit, 
as  other  neutral  ships  might,  that  title,  by  various 
acts  of  misconduct,  by  violations  of  belligerent 
rights  most  clearly  and  universally.  But  though 
the  Prize-Court  looked  primarily  to  violations 
of  belligerent  rights  as  grounds  of  confiscation  in 
vessels  not  actually  belonging  to  the  enemy,  it  had 
extended  itself  a  good  deal  beyond  considerations  of 
that  description  only.  It  had  been  established  by 
recent  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  that  the 
Court  of  Prize,  though  properly  a  court  purely  of 
the  law  of  nations,  has  a  right  to  notice  the  muni- 
cipal law  of  this  country  in  the  case  of  a  British 
vessel  which,  in  the  course  of  a  prize-proceeding, 
appears  to  have  been  trading  in  violation  of  that 
law,  and  to  reject  a  claim  for  her  on  that  account. 
That  principle  had  been  incorporated  into  the 
prize-law  of  this  country  within  the  last  twenty 
years,  and  seemed  now  fully  incorporated.  A  late 
decision  in  the  case  of  the  Amadie  seemed  to  have 
gone  the  length  of  establishing  a  principle,  that  any 
trade  contrary  to  the  general  law  of  nations,  although 
not  tending  to,  or  accompanied  with,  any  infrac- 
tion of  the  law  of  that  country  whose  tribunals 
were  called  upon  to  consider  it,  might  subject  the 
vessels  employed  in  that  trade  to  confiscation.  The 
Amadie  was  an  American  ship  employed  in  carry- 
ing on  the  slave-trade ;  a  trade  which  this  country, 
since  its  own  abandonment  of  it,  had  deemed  repug- 
nant to  the  law  of  nations,  to  justice,  and  humanity ; 
though  without  presuming  so  to  consider  and  treat 


ika 


Igy0 


66 


ate 


it  where  it  occurs  in  the  practice  of  the  subjects 
of  a  state  which  continued  to  tolerate  and  protect 
it  by  its  own  municipal  regulations :  but  it  put 
upon  the  parties  the  burden  of  showing  that  it 
was  so  tolerated  and  ]irotected ;  and  in  failure  of 
producing  such  proof,  proceeded  to  condemnation, 
as  it  did  in  the  case  of  that  vessel.  "  How  far  that 
judgment  has  been  universally  concurred  in  and 
approved,"  continued  Lord  Stowell,  "  is  not  for  me 
to  inquire.  If  there  be  those  who  disapprove  of  it,  I 
certainly  am  not  at  liberty  to  include  myself  in  that 
number,  because  the  decisions  of  that  Court  bind  au- 
thoritatively the  conscience  of  this;  its  decisions  must 
be  conformed  to,  and  its  principles  practically  adopted. 
The  principle  laid  down  in  that  case  ap[)ears  to  be, 
that  the  slave-trade  carried  on  by  a  vessel  belonging 
to  a  subject  of  the  United  States  is  a  trade  which, 
being  unprotected  by  the  domestic  regulations  of 
their  legislature  and  government,  subjects  the  ves- 
sel engaged  in  it  to  a  sentence  of  condemnation.  If 
the  ship  should  therefore  turn  out  to  be  an  American, 
actually  employed ;  it  matters  not,  in  my  opinion, 
in  what  stage  of  the  employment,  whether  in  the 
inception,  or  the  prosecution,  or  the  consummation 
of  it ;  the  case  of  the  Amadie  will  bind  the  conscience 
of  this  Court  to  the  effect  of  compelling  it  to  pro- 
nounce a  sentence  of  confiscation."* 

In  a  subsequent  case,  that  of  the  Diana,  Lord 
Stowell  limited  the  application  of  the  doctrine  in- 


*  Dodson's  "  Admiralty  Reports,"  vol.  i.  p.  81.    Fifth  Report 
of  the  OomiQittee  of  the  African  Institution,  p.  15. 
9 


66 


vented  by  Sir  W.  Grant  to  the  special  circumstances 
which  distinguished  the  case  of  the  Amadie.     The 
Diana  was  a  Swedish  vessel,  captured  by  a  British 
cruiser  cr  the  coast  of  Africa  whilst  actually  en- 
gaged in  carrying  slaves  to  the  Swedish  West  India 
possessions.     The  vessel  and  cargo  was  restored  to 
the  Swedish  owner,  on  the  ground  that  Sweden 
had  not  then  prohibited  the  trade,  by  law  or  con- 
vention, and  still  continued  to  tolerate  it  in  practice. 
It  was  stated  by  Lord  Stowell,  in  delivering  the 
judgment  of  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty  in  this 
case,  that  England  had  abolished  the  trade  as  un- 
just and  criminal ;  but  she  claimed  no  right  of  en- 
forcing that  prohibition  against  the  subjects  of  those 
states  which  had  not  adopted  the  same  opinion; 
and  England  did  not  mean  to  set  herself  up  as  the 
legislator  and  custos  morum  for  the  whole  world, 
or  presume  to  interfere  with  the  commercial  regu- 
lations of  '^♦her  states.     The  principle  of  the  case 
of  the  Amadie  was,  that  where  the  municipal  law 
of  the  country  to  which  the  parties  belonged  had 
prohibited  the  trade,  British  tribunals  would  hold  it 
to  be  illegal,  upon  general  principles  of  justice  and 
humanity;  but  they  would  respect  the  property  of 
persons  engaged  in  it  under  the  sanction  of  the  laws 
of  their  own  country.* 

The  above  three  cases  arose  during  the  continu- 
ance of  the  war,  and  whilst  the  laws  and  treaties 
prohibiting  the  slave-trade  were  incidentally  exe- 


*  Dodson's  "  Admiralty  Reports,"  vol.  i.  p.  95. 


li 


67 

cuted  through  the  exercise  of  the  belligerent  right 
of  visitation  and  search. 

In  the  case  of  the  Diana,  Lord  Stowell  had 
sought  to  distinguish  the  circumstances  of  that  case 
from  those  of  the  Amadie,  so  as  to  raise  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  case  of  the  suSjects  of  a  conntry 
which  had  alreaJy  prohibited  the  slave-trade  from 
that  of  those  whose  government  still  continued  to 
tolerate  it.  At  last  came  the  case  of  the  French 
vessel  called  the  Louis,  captured  after  the  general 
peace  by  a  British  cruiser,  and  condemned  in  the 
inferior  Court  of  Ad  rairalty.  Lord  Stowell  reversed 
the  sentence  in  1817,  discarding  altogether  the  au- 
thority of  the  Amadie  as  a  precedent,  both  upon 
general  reasoning  which  went  to  shake  that  case  to 
its  very  foundations,  and  upon  the  special  ground, 
that  even  admitting  that  the  trade  had  been  actually 
prohibited  by  the  municipal  laws  of  France  (which 
was  doubtful,)  the  right  of  visitation  and  search 
(being  an  exclusively  belligerent  right,)  could  not 
consistently  with  the  law  of  nations  be  exercised  in 
time  of  peace  to  enforce  that  prohibition  by  the 
British  courts  upon  the  property  of  French  subjects. 
In  delivering  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  of 
Admiralty  in  this  case,  Lord  Stowell  held  that  the 
slave-trade,  though  unjust  and  condemned  by  the 
statute-law  of  England  was  not  piracy,  nor  was  it 
a  crime  by  the  universal  la  v  of  nations.  A  court 
of  justice,  in  the  administration  of  law,  must  look  to 
the  legal  standard  of  morality,— a  standard  which, 
upon  a  question  of  this  nature,  must  be  found  in 


68 

the  law  of  nations  as  fixed  and  evidenced  by  gene- 
ral, ancient,  and  admitted  practice,  by  treaties,  and 
by  the  general  tenor  of  the  laws,  ordinances,  and 
formal  transactions  of  civilized  states ;  and  looking 
to  these  authorities,  he  found  a  difficulty  in  main- 
taining that  the  transaction  was  legally  criminal. 
To  make  it  piracy  or  a  crime  by  the  universal  law 
of  nations,  it  must  have  been  so  considered  and 
treated  in  practice  by  all  civilized  states,  or  made  so 
by  virtue  of  a  general  convention. 

The  slave-trade,  on  the  contrary,  had  been  carried 
on  by  all  nations,  including  Great  Britain,  until 
a  very  recent  period,  and  was  still  carried  on  by 
Spain  and  Portugal,  and  not  yet  entirely  prohibited 
by  France.  It  was  not,  therefore,  a  criminal 
traffic  by  the  consuetudinary  law  of  nations  ;  and 
every  nation,  independently  of  special  compact, 
retained  a  legal  right  to  carry  it  on.  No  nation 
could  exercise  the  right  of  visitation  and  search  upon 
the  common  and  unappropriated  parts  of  the  ocean 
except  upon  the  belligerent  claim.  No  one  nation 
had  a  right  to  force  its  way  to  the  liberation  of 
Africa  by  trampling  on  the  independence  of  other 
states ;  or  to  procure  an  eminent  good  by  means 
that  are  unlawful ;  or  to  press  forward  to  a  great 
principle  by  breaking  through  other  great  princi- 
ples that  stand  in  the  way.  The  right  of  visitation 
and  search  on  the  high  seas  did  not  exist  in  time  of 
peace.  If  it  belonged  to  one  nation,  it  equally 
belonged  to  all,  and  would  lead  to  gigantic  mischief 
and  universal  war.  Other  nations  had  refused  to 
accede  to  the  British  proposal  of  a  reciprocal  right 


69 


of  search  in  the  African  seas,  and  it  would  require 
an  express  convention  to  give  the  right  of  search  in 
time  of  peace.* 

The  leading  principles  of  this  judgment  were 
confirmed  in  1820  by  the  Court  of  King's  Bench, 
in  the  case  of  Madrazo  v.  Willis,  in  which  the 
point  of  the  illegality  of  the  slave-trade  under  the 
general  law  of  nations  came  incidentally  in  question. 
The  Court  held  that  the  British  statutes  against  the 
slave-trade  were  applicable  to  British  subjects  only. 
The  British  Parliament  could  not  prevent  the  sub- 
jects of  other  states  from  carrying  on  the  trade  out 
of  the  limits  of  the  British  dominions.  If  a  ship  be 
acting  contrary  to  the  general  law  of  nations,  she  is 
thereby  subject  to  condemnation ;  but  it  was  im- 
possible to  say  that  the  slave-trade  is  contrary  to 
the  law  of  nations.  It  was,  until  lately,  carried  on 
by  all  the  nations  of  Europe;  and  a  practice  so 
sanctioned  could  only  be  rendered  illegal,  on  the 
principles  of  international  law,  by  the  consent  of 
all  the  powers.  Many  states  had  so  consented,  but 
others  had  not ;  and  the  adjudged  cases  had  gone  no 
farther  that  to  establish  the  rule,  that  ships  belong- 
ing to  countries  that  had  prohibited  the  trade  were 
liable  to  capture  and  condemnation,  if  found  engaged 
in  it-t 

A  similar  course  of  reasoning  was  adopted  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  1825,  in  the 
case  of  Spanish  and  Portuguese  vessels  engaged  in 
the  slave-trade,  whilst  that  trade  was  still  tolerated  by 

*  Dodson's  "Admiralty  Reports,"  vol.  ii.  p.  210. 

t  Bimwell's  and  Alderson's  "  Reports,"  vol.  iii.  p.  353. 


70 

the  laws  of  Spain  and  Portugal,  captured  by  Ame- 
rican cruisers,  and  brought  in  for  adjudication  in 
the  Admiralty  Courts  of  the  Union.  In  delivering 
the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  one  of  these 
cases,  Mr.  Chief- Justice-  Marshall  stated  that  it 
could  hardly  be  denied  that  the  slave-trade  was 
contrary  to  the  law  of  nature ;  that  every  man  had 
a  natural  right  to  the  fruits  of  his  own  labour  was 
generally  admitted ;  and  that  no  other  person  could 
rightly  deprive  him  of  those  fruits,  and  appropriate 
them  against  his  will,  seemed  to  be  the  necessary 
result  of  this  admission.  But  from  the  earliest 
times  war  had  existed,  and  war  conferred  rights  in 
which  all  had  acquiesced.  Among  the  most  en- 
lightened nations  of  antiquity,  one  of  these  rights 
was,  that  the  victor  might  enslave  the  vanquished. 
That  which  was  the  usage  of  all  nations  could  not 
be  pronounced  repugnant  to  the  law  of  nations^ 
which  was  certainly  to  be  tried  by  the  test  of  gene- 
ral usage.  That  which  had  received  the  assent  of 
all  must  be  the  law  of  all. 

Slavery,  then,  had  its  origin  in  force;  but  as 
the  world  had  agreed  that  it  was  a  legitimate  result 
of  force,  the  state  of  things  which  was  thus  pro- 
duced by  general  consent  could  not  be  pronounced 
unlawful. 

Throughout  Christendom  this  harsh  rule  had 
been  exploded,  and  war  was  no  longer  considered 
as  giving  a  right  to  enslave  captures.  But  this  tri- 
umph had  not  been  universal.  The  parties  to  the 
modern  law  of  nations  do  not  propagate  their  prin- 
ciples by  force ;  and  Africa  had  not  yet  adopted  them. 


i       II 


71 


Throughout  the  whole  extent  of  that  immense  con- 
tinent, so  far  as  we  know  its  history,  it  is  still  the 
law  of  nations  that  prisoners  are  slaves.  The  ques- 
tion ::hen  was,  could  those  who  had  renounced  this 
law  be  permitted  to  participate  in  its  effects,  by  pur- 
chasing the  human  beings  who  are  its  victims  ? 

"Whatever  might  be  the  answer  of  a  moralist  to 
this  question,  a  jurist  must  search  for  its  legal  solu- 
tion in  those  principles  which  are  sanctioned  by  the 
usages, — the  national  acts  and  the  general  assent  of 
that  portion  of  the  world,  of  which  he  considers  him- 
self a  part,  and  to  whose  law  the  appeal  is  made. 
If  we  resort  to  this  standard  as  the  test  of  interna- 
tional law,  the  question  must  be  considered  as  de- 
cided in  favour  of  the  legality  of  the  trade.  Both 
Europe  and  America  embarked  in  it ;  and  for  nearly 
two  centuries  it  was  carried  on  without  opposition 
and  without  censure.  A  jurist  could  not  say  that  a 
practice  thus  supported  was  illegal,  and  that  those 
engaged  in  it  might  be  punished,  either  personally 
or  by  deprivation  of  property. 

In  this  commerce,  thus  sanctioned  by  universal 
fconsent,  every  nation  had  an  equal  right  to  engage. 
No  principle  of  general  law  was  more  universally 
acknowledged  than  the  perfect  equality  of  nations. 
Russia  and  Geneva  have  equal  rights.  It  results 
from  this  equality,  that  no  one  can  rightfully  im- 
pose a  rule  on  another.  Each  legislates  for  itself, 
but  its  legislation  can  operate  on  itself  alone.  A 
rights  then,  which  was  vested  in  all  by  the  consent 
of  all,  could  be  divested  only  by  consent;  and  this 
trade,  in  which  all  had  participated,  must  remain 


72 


1 1 


lawful  to  those  who  could  not  be  induced  to  relin- 
quish it.  As  no  nation  could  prescribe  a  rule  for 
others,  no  one  could  make  a  law  of  nations ;  and 
this  traffic  remained  lawful  to  those  whose  govern- 
ment had  not  forbidden  it. 

If  it  was  consistent  with  the  laws  of  nations,  it 
could  not  in  itself  be  piracy :  it  could  be  made  so 
only  by  statute ;  and  the  obligation  of  the  statute 
could  not  transcend  the  legislative  power  of  the  state 
which  might  enact  it. 

If  the  trade  was  neither  repugnant  to  the  law  of 
nations  nor  piratical,  it  was  almost  superfluous  to 
say  in  that  Court  that  the  right  of  bringing  in  for 
adjudication  in  time  of  peace,  even  whore  the  vessel 
belonged  to  a  nation  which  had  prohibited  the  trade, 
could  not  exist.  The  courts  of  justice  of  no  country 
executed  the  penal  laws  of  another ;  and  the  course 
of  policy  of  the  American  Government  on  the  subject 
of  visitation  and  search  would  decide  any  case 
against  the  captors  in  which  that  right  had  been  ex- 
ercised by  an  American  cruiser,  on  the  vessels  of  a 
foreign  nation  not  violating  the  municipal  laws  of 
the  United  States.  It  followed,  that  a  foreign  vessel 
engaged  in  the  African  slave-trade,  captured  on  the 
high  seas  in  time  of  peace  by  an  American  cruiser, 
and  brought  in  for  adjudication,  would  be  restored 
to  the  original  owners.* 

We  thus  perceive  that  the  highest  judicial  autho- 
rities in  both  countries  concur  in  declaring  that  the 
African  slave-trade  is  not  prohibited  by  the  general 


*  Wheaton's  '♦  Reports,"  vol.  x.  p.  66.    The  Antelope. 


73 


law  of  nations ;  and  that  so  far  as  prohibited  by  the 
municipal  laws  of  particular  states,  or  by  special 
compacts  between  particular  states,  such  prohibition 
can  only  be  enforced  by  the  tribunals  cf  that  coun- 
try in  which  it  has  been  enacted,  or,  in  the  other  al- 
ternative, of  such  countries  as  are  parties  to  the 
compact.  That  if  the  slave-trade  be  not  unlawful 
by  the  general  law  of  nations,  still  less  can  it  be  con- 
sidered as  piracy  under  that  law,  to  be  punished  as 
such  in  a  court  of  the  law  of  nations.  That  the 
right  of  visitation  and  search  on  the  high  seas  by  the 
armed  and  commissioned  vessels  of  one  nation  upon 
the  merchant-ve^-sels  of  another,  does  not  exist  in 
time  of  peace,  unless  by  special  compact,  binding 
only  on  those  who  have  freely  consented  to  become 
parties  to  such  compact.  And  that,  consequently, 
the  right  of  visitation  and  search  cannot  be  thus  ex- 
ercised in  iime  of  peace,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
in  for  adjudication  the  vessels  of  any  nation  suspected 
of  being  engaged  in  the  slave-trade,  whether  the 
trade  has  been  prohibited  by  the  municipal  laws  of 
that  nation  or  not,  unless  it  has  expressly  consented 
to  the  exercise  of  the  right  for  that  purpose. 

Such  was  the  state  of  judicial  opinion  in  England 
respecting  the  legality  of  the  slave-trade  according 
to  the  recognised  principle  of  public  law,  when  a 
joint  address  of  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament  was 
presented  to  the  Prince  Regent  on  the  9th  of  July, 
1819,  congratulating  his  Royal  Highness  upon  the 
success  which  had  crowned  the  efforts  of  the  British 
Government  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade ; 

that  guilty  traffic  having  been  declared  by  the  con- 
10 


74 


I' 


current  voice  of  all  the  great  powers  of  Europe,  as- 
sembled in  Congress,  to  be  repugnant  to  the  princi- 
ple of  humarity  and  of  universal  morality. 

That,  consequently,  on  this  declaration,  all  the 
states  whose  subjects  were  formerly  concerned  in 
this  criminal  traffic  had  since  prohibited  it,  the 
greater  part  absolutely  and  entirely;  some,  for  a 
time,  partially,  on  that  part  of  the  coast  of  Africa 
only  which  is  to  the  north  of  the  line :  of  the  two 
states  (Spain  and  Portugal)  which  still  tolerated  the 
traffic,  one  would  soon  cease  to  be  thus  distinguished ; 
the  period  which  Spain  had  fixed  for  the  total  abo- 
lition of  the  trade  being  near  at  hand  :  one  power 
alone  (Portugal)  had  hitherto  forborne  to  specify 
any  period  when  the  traffic  should  be  absolutely 
prohibited. 

That  the  United  States  of  America  were  honour- 
ably distinguished  as  the  first  which  pronounced  the 
condemnation  of  the  guilty  traffic;  and  that  they  had 
since  successively  passed  various  laws  for  carrying 
their  prohibition  into  eifect : 

That,  nev  srtheless,  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament 
could  not  bu  c  hear  with  feelings  of  deep  regret,  that, 
notwithstanding  the  strong  condemnation  of  the 
crime  by  all  the  great  powers  of  Europe  and  by  the 
United  States  of  America,  there  was  reason  to  fear 
that  the  measures  which  had  been  hitherto  adopted 
for  actually  suppressing  these  crimes  were  not  yet 
adequate  to  their  purpose : 

That  they  never,  however,  could  admit  the  per- 
suasion that  so  great  and  generous  a  people  as  that 
of  France,  which  had  condemned  this  guilty  com- 


75 


Tl 


merce  in  the  strongest  terms,  would  be  less  earnest 
than  the  British  nation  to  wipe  away  so  foul  a  blot 
on  the  character  of  a  Christian  people : 

That  they,  if  possible,  were  still  less  willing  to 
admit  such  a  supposition  in  the  instance  of  the 
United  States;  a  people  derived  originally  from  the 
same  common  stock  with  the  British  nation,  and  fa- 
voured, like  them,  in  a  degree  hitherto  perhaps  un- 
equalled in  the  history  of  the  world,  with  the  enjoy- 
ment of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  all  their 
attendant  blessings : 

•*  That  the  consciousness  that  the  Government  of 
this  country  was  originally  instrumental  in  leading 
the  Americans  into  this  criminal  course,  must  natu- 
rally prompt  us  to  call  on  them  the  more  importu- 
nately to  join  us  in  endeavouring  to  put  an  entire 
end  to  the  evil  of  which  it  is  productive." 

The  Address  farther  stated  that  the  two  Houses 
of  Parliament  conceived  that  the  establishment  of 
some  concert  and  co-operation  in  the  measures  to 
be  taken  by  the  different  powers  for  the  execution 
of  their  common  purpose,  might,  in  various  respects, 
be  of  great  practical  utility ;  and  that  under  the  im- 
pression of  this  persuasion,  several  of  the  European 
states  had  already  entered  into  conventional  arrange- 
ments for  seizing  vessels  engaged  in  the  criminal 
traffic,  and  for  bringing  to  punishment  those  who 
should  still  be  guilty  of  these  nefarious  practices : 

That  they,  therefore,  supplicated  his  Royal 
Highness  to  renew  his  beneficent  endeavours,  more 
especially  with  the  Governments  of  France  and  of 
the  United   States  of  America,  for  the  effectual 


7n 


attainment  ot"  an  object  which  all  professed  equally 
to  have  in  view ;  and  they  could  not  but  indulge 
the  confident  hope  that  their  efforts  might  yet,  ere 
long,  produce  their  desired  effect, — might  ensure 
the  practical  enforcement  of  principles  universally 
acknowledged  to  be  undeniably  just  and  true, — 
and  might  obtain  for  the  long  afflicted  people  of 
Africa  the  actual  termination  of  their  wrongs  and 
miseries, — and  might  destroy  for  ever  that  fatal 
barrier  which,  by  obstructing  the  ordinary  course 
of  civilization  and  social  improvement,  had  so  long 
kept  a  large  portion  of  the  globe  in  darkness  and 
barbarism,  and  rendered  its  connexion  with  the 
civilized  and  Christain  nation'  of  the  earth  a  fruit- 
ful source  only  of  wretchedness    and  desolation.* 

Sustained  with  the  support  given  by  this  Parlia- 
mentary Address,  Lord  Castlereagh  once  more  re- 
newed the  efforts  he  had  previously  made  to  secure 
the  assent  of  the  American  Government  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  right  of  visitation  and  search  in  time 
of  peace  as  a  means  of  more  efiectually  suppressing 
the  slave-trade. 

In  consequence  of  his  lordship's  instructions,  Sir 
Stratford  Canning,  the  British  minister  at  Wash- 
ington, presented  to  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams, 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  American  Government, 
a  note,  under  date  of  20th  of  December,  1820, 
stating  that  notwithstanding  all  that  had  been  done 
on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  for  the  suppression  of 
the  African  slave-trade,  it  was  notorious  that  an 


.Fourteenth  Report  of  the  African  Institution,  pp.  4-7. 


77 


illicit  commerce,  attended  with  aggravating  suffer- 
ing to  its  unhappy  victims,  was  still  carried  on ; 
and  that  it  was  generally  acknowledged  that  a  com- 
bined system  of  maritime  police  could  alone  afford 
the  means  of  putting  it  down  with  effect. 

The  note  farther  stated,  that  the  concurrence  of 
principle  in  the  condemnation  and  prohibition  of 
the  slave-trade,  which  had  so  honourably  distin- 
guished the  British  Parliament  and  American  Con- 
gress, seemed  naturally  and  unavoidably  to  lead  to 
a  concert  of  meas'ires  between  the  two  governments, 
the  moment  such  co-operation  was  recognised  as 
necessary  for  the  accomplishment  of  their  mutual 
purpose.  It  could  not  be  anticipated  that  either  of 
the  parties,  discouraged  by  such  difficulties  as  are 
inseparable  from  all  human  transactions  of  any 
magnitude,  would  be  content  to  acquiesce  in  the 
continuance  of  a  practice  so  flagrantly  immoral, 
especially  at  the  (then)  present  favourable  period, 
when  the  slave-trade  was  completely  prohibited  to 
the  north  of  the  equator  and  countenanced  by  Por- 
tugal alone  to  the  south  of  that  line. 

The  note  concluded  by  stating,  that  Mr.  Adams 
was  fully  acquainted  with  the  particular  measures 
recommended  by  His  Majesty's  ministers  as  heat 
calculated,  in  their  opinion,  to  attain  the  object 
which  both  parties  had  in  view ;  but  he  need  not  be 
reminded  that  the  British  Government  was  too  sin- 
cere in  the  pursuit  of  that  common  object  to  press 
the  adoption  of  its  own  proposal,  however  satisfac- 
tory in  themselves,  to  the  exclusion  of  any  sugges- 
tions equally  conducive  to  the  same  end,  and  more 


78 


agreeable  to  the  institutions  or  prevailing  opiiuons 
of  other  nations. 

In  his  reply  to  this  note,  Mr.  Adams  stated,  that 
the  proposals  made  by  the  British  Government  to 
the  United  States,  inviting  their  accession  to  the  ar- 
rangements contained  in  the  treaties  relating  to  the 
slave-trade  with  Spain,  Portugal,  and  the  Nether- 
lands, to  which  Great  Britain  was  a  reciprocal  con- 
tracting party,  had  been  again  taken  into  conside- 
ration by  the  President,  with  an  anxious  desire  of 
contributing  to  the  final  suppression  of  the  trade  to 
the  utmost  extent  of  the  powers  within  the  compe- 
tency of  the  Federal  Government,  and  by  means 
compatible  with  its  duties  m  respect  to  the  rights  of 
its  own  citizens  and  the  principles  of  its  national  in- 
dependence. 

The  reply  farther  stated,  that  at  an  earlier  period 
of  the  communications  between  the  two  govern- 
ments upon  this  subject,  the  President,  in  manifest- 
ing his  sensibility  to  the  amicable  spirit  of  confi- 
dence with  which  the  measures  concerted  between 
Great  Britain  and  some  of  her  European  allies  had 
been  made  known  to  the  United  States,  and  to  the 
candid  offer  of  admitting  them  to  a  participation  in 
those  measures,  had  instructed  the  American  minis- 
ter in  London  to  represent  the  difficulties  which 
placed  the  President  under  the  necessity  of  declining 
the  proposal.  These  difficulties  resulted,  as  well 
from  certain  principles  of  international  law  of  the 
deepest  and  most  painful  interest  to  the  Uriited  S tales f 
as  from  limitations  of  authority  prescribed  by  the 
American  people  to  the  legislative  and  executive 


79 


depositories  of  the  uationul  power.  On  this  occa- 
sion it  had  been  represented,  that  a  compact,  giving 
the  power  to  the  naval  officers  of  one  nation  to  search 
the  merchant-vessels  of  another  for  offenders  and 
offences  against  the  latter,  backed  by  a  farther 
power  to  seize  and  carry  into  a  foreign  port,  and 
there  subject  to  the  decision  of  a  tribunal  composed 
of,  at  least,  one-half  foreigners,  irresponsible  to  the 
supreme  corrective  tribunal  of  the  American  Union, 
and  not  amenable  to  the  control  of  impeachment 
for  official  misdemeanour,  was  an  investment  of 
power  over  the  persons,  property,  and  reputation  of 
the  citizens  of  that  country,  not  only  unwarranted 
by  any  delegation  of  sovereign  power  to  the  national 
government,  but  so  adverse  to  the  elementary  prin- 
ciples and  indispensable  securities  interwoven  in  all 
the  political  institutions  of  the  United  States,  that 
not  even  the  most  unqualified  approbation  of  the 
ends  to  which  the  proposed  organization  of  authority 
was  adopted,  nor  the  most  sincere  and  earnest  wish 
to  concur  in  every  suitable  expedient  for  their  ac- 
complishment, could  reconcile  it  to  those  sentiments 
and  principles  of  which,  in  the  estimation  of  the 
American  people  and  government,  no  consideration 
whatever  could  justify  the  transgression. 

Mr.  Adams  also  referred,  in  his  reply  to  the  note 
of  Sir  Stratford  Canning,  to  several  conferences 
between  them,  in  which  the  subject  had  been  fully 
and  freely  discussed,  and  in  which  the  incompe- 
tency of  the  power  of  the  American  Government  to 
become  a  party  to  the  institution  of  tribunals  or- 
ganized like  those  stipulated  in  the  treaties  above 


so 


i         :!i 


\\   :;il 


!        ^1 


noticed,  and  the  incompatibility  of  such  tribunals 
v.'ith  the  constitutional  rights  guaranteed  to  every 
citizen  of  the  Union,  had  been  shown  by  references 
to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  American 
Government,  by  which  the  supreme,  unlimited, 
sovereign  power  is  considered  as  inherent  in  the 
whole  body  of  the  people,  whilst  its  delegations  are 
limited  and  restricted  by  the  terms  of  the  instru- 
ments sanctioned  by  them,  under  which  the  powers 
of  legislation,  judgment,  and  execution,  are  adminis- 
tered, and  by  special  indications  of  those  articles  in 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States  which  ex- 
pressly prohibit  their  constituted  authorities  from 
erecting  any  judicial  courts,  by  the  forms  of  the 
process  belonging  to  which  American  citizens  should 
be  called  to  answer  for  any  penal  offence  without 
the  intervention  of  a  grand  jury  to  accuse  and  of  a 
jury  of  trial  to  decide  upon  the  charge. 

But,  while  regretting  that  the  character  of  the 
organized  means  of  co-operation  for  the  suppression 
of  the  African  slave-trade  proposed  by  Great  Britain 
did  not  admit  of  the  President's  concurrence  in  the 
adoption  of  them,  he  had  been  far  from  the  disposi- 
tion to  reject  or  discountenance  the  general  proposi- 
tion of  concerted  co-operation  with  Great  Britain  to 
the  accomplishment  of  the  common  end — the  sup- 
pression of  the  slave-trade.  For  this  purpose,  armed 
cruisers  of  the  United  States  had  been  for  some 
time  kept  stationed  on  that  coast  which  was  the 
scene  of  this  odious  traffic, — a  measure  which  the 
American  Government  intended  to  continue  with- 
out intermission.      As  there  were  armed  British 


81 

vessels  charged  with  the  same  duty,  Mr.  Adams 
was  directed  by  the  President  to  propose  that  in- 
structions, to  be  concerted  between  the  two  govern- 
ments, with  a  view  to  mutual  assistance,  should  be 
given  to  the  commanders  of  the  vessels  respectively 
assigned  to  that  service ;  that  they  should  be  or- 
dered, whenever  convenient,  to  cruise  in  company 
together,  to  communicate  mutually  all  information 
which  might  be  useful  to  the  execution  of  their  re- 
spective duties,  and  to  give  each  other  every  assist- 
ance compatible  with  their  own  service  and  adapted 
to  the  end  which  was  the  common  object  of  both 
parties. 

These  measures,  it  was  added,  congenial  to  the 
spirit  which  had  so  long  and  so  steadily  marked  the 
policy  of  the  United  States  in  the  vindication  of  the 
rights  of  humanity,  would,  it  was  hoped,  prove  ef- 
fectual to  the  purposes  for  which  their  co-operation 
was  desired  by  the  British  Government,  and  to 
which  the  American  Union  would  continue  to 
direct  its  most  strenuous  and  persevering  exertions. 

In  a  despatch  from  Lord  Castiereagh  to  Sir  Strat- 
ford Canning,  datet  the  25th  of  March,  1821,  the 
former  expressed  his  disappointment  that  the  coun- 
ter proposal  of  the  American  Government  fell  so  far 
short  of  the  object  which  the  British  Government 
had  in  view;  but  Sir  Stratford  Canning  was  in- 
structed to  communicate  to  the  American  Govern- 
ment the  instructions  under  which  the  British  naval 
force  stationed  in  the  African  seas  was  acting,  and 
to  inform  it  that  additional  instructions  would  im- 
mediately be  sent  to  the  British  vessels  engaged  in 
U 


82 


II 


that  service  to  co-operate  with  such  American  ves- 
sels as  might  be  employed  in  those  seas  for  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  traffic* 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  American  Government 
still  adhered,  in  1820-21,  to  their  original  objec- 
tions to  the  concession  of  the  right  of  visitation  and 
search  as  demanded  by  the  British  Government. 

On  the  29th  of  January,  1823,  Sir  Stratford 
Canning  once  more  addressed  an  official  letter  on 
this  subject  to  Mr.  Adams,  stating  that  the  British 
Government  still  remained  convinced  that  the  only 
effectual  means  of  suppressing  the  tra^iic  wa<^,  to  be 
found  in  the  proposed  mutual  concession  of  the 
right  of  search.  He,  at  the  same  time,  invited  the 
communication  on  the  part  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment of  some  efficient  counter  proposal  originating 
with  itself  The  letter  also  requested  the  America^' 
cabinet  to  give  instructions  to  its  envoy  at  Paris  to 
concar  with  the  British  ambassador  in  a  joint  repre- 
sentation to  the  French  Government  on  tlie  sub- 
ject of  the  slave-trade,  which  still  continr  ed  to  be 
carried  on  under  the  French  flag. 

On  the  8th  of  March,  1823,  a  resolution  passed 
the  House  of  Representatives,  "  That  the  President 
of  the  Urjited  States  be  requested  to  enter  upon, 
and  to  prosecut<j,  from  time  to  time,  such  negotia- 
tions with  the  several  maritime  powers  of  Europe 
and  America,  an  hu  may  deem  expedient,  for  the 
eifectual  abolition  ♦/f  the  African  slave-trade  and  its 


*  Supplement  U>  tf*e  Annual  Report  of  the  Directors  of  the 
African  Institution  f^  the  year  1821,  pp.  151-157. 


HJlia 


S3 


ultimate  denunciation  as  piracy,  under  the  law  of 
nations,  by  the  consent  of  the  civilized  world." 

On  the  31st  March,  1823,  Mr.  Adams  replied  to 
Sir  S.  Canning's  letter,  stating  that  the  answer 
had  been  delayed,  not  by  any  abatement  of  the  in- 
terest felt  by  the  American  Government  for  the 
final  suppression  of  the  slave-trade,  nor  by  any 
hesitation  as  to  persevering  in  its  former  refusal  to 
submit  their  vessels  and  cilizens  to  the  search  of 
foreign  officers  upon  the  high  seas,  but  by  an  ex- 
pectation that  the  proceedings  in  Congress  would 
indicate  to  che  executive  government  views  upon 
which  it  might  be  enabled  to  substitute  a  proposal 
more  effectual  for  this  purpose  and  less  objectionable 
than  that  to  which  the  United  States  could  not  be 
reconciled,  namely,  that  of  granting  the  right  of 
search.  These  proceedings  had  resulted  in  the 
alcove  resolution,  which  would  doubtless  have 
obtained  the  sanction  of  the  senate,  had  there 
been  time  to  collect  the  opinion  of  that  branch  of 
the  national  legislation  before  the  close  of  the  ces- 
sion. The  President  had,  therefore,  no  hesitation 
in  acting  upon  the  expressed  and  almost  unanimous 
sense  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  so  far  as  to 
declare  the  willingness  of  the  American  Union  to 
join  with  other  nations  in  the  common  engagement 
to  pursue  and  punish  those  who  shall  continue  to 
practise  this  crime,  so  reprobated  by  the  just  and 
humane  of  every  country  as  enemies  of  the  human 
race,  and  to  fix  them,  irrevocably,  in  the  class  and 
under  the  denomination  of  pirates. 

Mr.  Adams  also  transmitted  to  Sir  S.  Canning  -i 
copy  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  15th  May,  1820, 


84 


« 


1  .: 

n :  < 


t    1 


by  which  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  being  of 
the  crew  of  any  foreign  ship  engaged  in  the  slave- 
trade,  or  any  person  whatever  being  of  the  crew  of 
any  ship  owned,  in  whole  or  in  part,  or  navigated  in 
behalf  of  American  citizens,  participating  in  the 
slave-trade,  is  declared  to  have  incurred  the  penalties 
of  piracy,  and  made  liable  to  atone  for  the  crime  with 
his  life.  The  legislature  of  a  single  nation  could  go 
no  farther  to  mark  its  abhorrence  of  this  traffic,  or 
to  deter  the  people  subject  to  its  laws  from  contami- 
nation by  the  practices  of  others. 

Mr.  Adams  farther  stated  that  if,  as  represented 
by  Sir  S.  Canning,  the  French  flag  was  more  parti- 
cularly employed  to  cover  the  illicit  trade  on  the 
coast  of  Africa,  and  to  conceal  the  property  and  per- 
sons of  individuals  bound  to  other  allegiances,  the 
act*  of  Congress  above  mentioned  made  every  Ame- 
rican citizen  concerned  in  such  covered  trade  liable, 
when  ^tected,  to  suffer  an  ignominious  death.  The 
code  Oi  Great  Britain  herself  had  hitherto  provided 
no  provision  of  equal  severity  in  the  prosecution  of 
her  subjects,  even  under  the  shelter  of  foreign  flags 
and  the  covert  of  simulated  papers  and  property. 

Mr.  Adams  concluded  by  stating  that  he  was  in- 
structed by  the  President  to  propose  the  adoption  by 
Great  Britain  of  the  principles  of  this  act,  and  to 
offer  a  mutual  stipulation  to  annex  the  penalties  of 
piracy  to  the  offence  of  participating  in  the  slave- 
trade  by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  tlie  two  countries. 
This  ]iroposal  was  made  as  a  substitute  for  that  of 
conceding  the  mutual  right  of  search,  and  of  a  trial 
by  niixed  commissions,  which  would  be  rendered 
useless  by  it.     Should  it  meet  X\w  approbation  of  the 


85 


British  Government,  it  might  be  separately  urged 
upon  the  adoption  of  France  and  the  other  European 
powers  in  the  manner  most  conducive  to  its  ultimate 
success. 

This  counter-proposal,  which  had  been  invited  by 
the  intimation  in  Sir  S.  Canning's  letter,  calling  for 
a  substitute  to  the  British  proposal  of  a  mutual  con- 
cession of  the  right  of  search,  was  received  by  him 
in  the  most  ungracious  manner.  Instead  of  answer- 
ing the  American  coui.ter -proposal,  he  proceeded, 
in  his  letter  of  the  8th  of  April,  1823,  to  discuss  the 
original  British  proposal  for  the  concession  of  a  re- 
ciprocal right  of  search,  and  endeavoured  to  obviate 
the  various  objections  which  had  induced  the  Ame- 
rican Government  peremptorily  to  reject  that  propo- 
sal. He  at  the  same  time  intimated  that  the  cap- 
tured vessels,  instead  of  being  tried  before  a  mixed 
commission  might  be  carried  in  for  adjudication  be- 
fore the  ordinary  Courts  of  Admiralty  of  the  captor's 
country,  or  before  the  similar  courts  of  that  country 
to  which  the  captured  vessels  belonged.  This  inti- 
mation, he  conceived,  would  remove  the  constitu- 
tional objections  previously  urged  by  the  American 
cabinet  against  the  proposed  mixed  commissions. 
But  the  first  part  only  of  this  alternative  was  dis- 
tinctly proposed  by  the  British  negotiator,  and  was 
considered  by  Mr.  Adams  in  his  reply  as  wholly  in- 
admissible. 

In  his  reply,  dated  the  24th  June,  1823,  the 
American  Secretary  of  State  observed,  that  his 
offer  was  presented  as  a  substitute  for  that  of  con- 
ceding a  mutual  right  of  search  with  a  trial  by 


86 


mixed  commissions,  to  which  the  United  States 
could  not  be  reconciled,  and  which  would  be  ren- 
dered useless  by  the  proposed  substitute. 

Sir  S.  Canning,  in  his  letter  of  the  8th  April,  had 
intimated  that  the  British  Government  would  be 
disposed  to  receive  this  offer  only  as  an  acknow- 
ledgment that  measures,  more  efficient  than  any 
then  generally  in  force,  were  indispensable  for  the 
suppression  of  the  slave-trade  ;  and  although  it  had 
never  opposed  the  consideration  of  another  plan 
brought  forward  as  equally  effective,  yet  having 
from  the  first  regarded  a  mutual  concession  of  the 
right  of  search  as  the  only  true  and  practical  cure 
for  the  evil,  their  prevailing  sentiment  would  be 
that  of  regret  at  the  unfavourable  view  still  taken 
of  it  by  the  American  Gov ornment.  Sir  S.  Canning's 
letter  therefore  urged  a  reconsideration  of  it,  and  by 
presenting  important  modifications,  of  the  proposal 
heretofore  made,  removed  some  of  the  objections 
taken  to  it  as  insuperable,  whilst  it  offered  argu- 
mentative answers  to  the  others  which  had  been 
disclosed  in  the  previous  correspondence. 

In  the  treaties  concluded  by  Great  Britain  with 
Spain,  Portugal,  and  the  Netherlands,  for  the  sup- 
pression of  the  slave-trade,  and  communicated  to 
the  American  Government  with  an  invitation  to 
enter  into  similar  engagements,  three  principles 
were  mvolved,  to  neither  of  which  that  government 
felt  itself  a4  liberty  to  accede. 

The  1st  was  the  mutual  concession  of  the  right 
of  search  and  capture,  in  time  of  peace,  over  mer- 
chant-vessels on  the  coast  of  Africa.     The  2d  was 


87 


the  exercise  of  that  right  even  over  vessels  sailing 
under  convoy  of  the  public  officers  of  their  own  na- 
tions; and  the  3d  was  the  trial  of  the  captured 
vessels  by  mixed  commissions  in  colonial  settle- 
ments, under  no  subordination  to  the  ordinary  judi- 
cial tribunals  of  the  country  to  which  the  party 
brought  before  them  should  belong. 

In  Sir  S.  Canning's  letter  of  the  8th  of  April,  an 
expectation  was  authorized  that  an  arrangement  for 
the  adjudication  of  the  vessels  detained  might  leave 
them  to  be  disposed  of  in  the  ordinary  way,  by  the 
sentence  of  an  Admiralty  Court  in  the  captor's 
country,  or  place  them  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
similar  court  in  the  country  to  which  they  belonged ; 
to  the  former  alternative  of  which  the  British  envoy 
anticipated  the  ready  assent  of  the  United  States,  in 
consequence  of  the  aggravated  nature  of  the  crime 
as  acknowledged  by  their  laws,  which  would  thus 
be  **  submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  ix  foreign  Court 
of  Admiralty."  But  it  was  precisely  because  it 
vfdts,  foreign,  that  the  objection  was  taken  to  the  trial 
by  mixed  commissions;  and  if  it  transcended  the 
constitutional  authority  of  the  United  States'  go- 
vernment to  subject  the  persons,  property,  and  repu- 
tations of  their  citizens  to  the  decisions  of  a  court 
partly  composed  of  their  own  countrymen,  it  might 
seem  needless  to  remark  that  the  constitutional  ob- 
jection could  not  diminish,  in  proportion  as  its  cause 
should  increase,  or  that  the  power  competent  to 
make  American  citizens  amenable  to  a  court  con- 
sisting of  one-half  foreigners,  should  be  adequate  to 


88 


#: 


place  their  liberty,  their  fortune,  and  their  fame  at 
the  disposal  of  tribunals  eniirehj  foreign. 

Mr.  Adams  farther  remarked  that  the  sentence 
of  an  Admiralty  Court  in  the  country  of  the  captor 
was  not  the  ordinary  way  by  which  the  vessels  of 
one  nation,  taken  on  the  high  seas  by  the  officers  of 
another,  are  tried  in  time  of  peace.  There  was  in 
the  ordinary  way  no  right  whatever  existing  to  take, 
to  search,  or  even  to  board  them ;  and  he  took  that 
occasion  to  express  the  great  satisfaction  with  which 
the  American  Government  had  seen  this  principle 
solemnly  recognised  by  a  recent  decision  of  a  British 
Court  of  Admiralty.*  Nor  was  the  aggravated 
nature  of  the  crime  for  the  trial  of  which  a  tribunal 
may  be  instituted  a  cogent  motive  for  assenting  to 
the  principle  of  subjecting  American  citizens,  their 
rights  and  interests,  to  the  decision  of  foreign  courts ; 
for  although  Great  Britain,  as  Sir  S.  Canning  re- 
marked, might  be  willing  to  abandon  those  of  her 
subjects  who  defied  the  laws  and  tarnished  the 
honour  of  their  country  by  participating  in  this  traf- 
fic, to  the  dispensation  of  justice  by  foreign  hands, 
the  United  States  were  bound  to  remember,  that  the 
power  which  enabled  a  court  to  try  the  guilty,  au- 
thorized it  also  to  pronounce  upon  the  fate  of  the 
innocent ;  and  that  the  very  question  of  guilt  or  in- 
nocence was  that  which  the  protecting  care  of  their 
constitution  had  reserved,  for  the  citizens  of  the 


*  Alluding,  doubtless,  to  the  judgment  of  Lord  Stowell  in  the 
case  of  Le  Louis. 


Qv 


Union,  to  the  exclusive  decision  of  their  own  coun- 
trymen. This  principle  had  not  been  departed  from 
by  the  statute  which  had  branded  the  slave-trader 
with  the  name  and  doomed  to  the  punishment  of  a 
pirate.  The  distinction  between  piracy  by  the  law 
of  nations  and  piracy  by  statute  was  well  known  and 
understood  in  Great  Britain;  and  whilst  interna- 
tional piracy  subjected  the  transgressor  guilty  of  it 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  any  and  every  country  into 
which  he  might  be  brought,  or  wherein  he  might 
be  taken,  statute  piracy  formed  a  part  of  the  muni- 
cipal code  of  the  country  where  it  was  enacted,  but 
could  only  be  tried  by  its  own  courts. 

There  remained  the  suggestion,  that  the  slave- 
trader  captured  under  the  mutual  concession  of  the 
power  to  make  the  capture  might  be  delivered  over 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  his  own  country.  This  ar- 
rangement would  not  be  liable  to  the  constitutional 
objection  which  must  ever  apply  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  mixed  commissions  or  of  the  Admiralty 
Courts  of  the  captors ;  and  if  Sir  S.  Canning's  let- 
ter was  to  be  understood  as  presenting  it  in  the  cha- 
racter of  an  alternative  to  which  his  government  was 
disposed  to  accede,  Mr.  Adams  was  authorized  to 
say  that  the  President  considered  it  as  sufficient  to 
remove  the  obstacle  which  had  precluded  the  assent 
of  the  United  States  to  the  former  proposals  of  the 
British  Government,  resulting  from  the  character 
and  composition  of  the  tribunals  to  which  the  ques- 
tion of  guilt  or  innocence  was  to  be  committed. 

The  objections  to  the  right  of  search,  as  inci- 
12 


i 


I 


;!. 


I 


90 


dentsU  to  the  right  of  detention  and  capture,  were 
also  in  a  very  considerable  degree  removed  by  the 
introduction  of  the  principle  that  neither  of  them 
should  be  exercised,  except  under  the  responsibility 
of  the  captor  in  costs  and  damages  to  the  tribunals 
of  the  captured  party.  This  guard  against  the 
abuse  of  a  power  so  liable  to  abuse  would  be  in- 
dispensable ;  but  if  the  provisions  necessary  for 
securing  effectually  its  practical  operation,  should 
reduce  the  right  itself  to  a  power  merely  nominal, 
the  stipulation  of  it  in  a  treaty  would  serve  rather 
to  mark  the  sacrifice  of  a  great  and  precious  prin- 
ciple, than  to  attain  the  end  for  which  it  would  be 
given  up. 

In  the  objections  heretofore  disclosed  to  the  pro- 
posed concession  of  the  mutual  right  of  search, 
the  principal  stress  was  laid  upon  the  repugnance 
which  such  a  concession  would  meet  in  the  public 
feeling  of  the  country,  and  of  those  to  whom  its  in- 
terests were  intrust'^-d  in  that  department  of  its 
government,  the  sanction  of  which  was  required 
for  the  ratification  of  treaties.  The  irritating  ten- 
dency of  the  practice  of  search  and  the  inequalities 
of  its  probable  operation  were  only  slightly  no- 
'liiced  by  Mr.  Adams,  and  had  been  contested 
in  argument,  or  met  by  propositions  of  possible 
palliatives,  or  remedies  for  anticipated  abuses,  in 
Sir  S.  Canning's  letter.  But  the  source  and  founda- 
tion of  all  these  objections  had  been  scarcely  men- 
tioned in  their  former  correspondence.  They  con- 
sisted in  the  very  nature  of  the  right  of  search  at 


91 

sea,  which,  as  recognised  or  tolerated  by  the  usage 
of  nations,  was  a  right  exclusively  of  war,  never 
exercised  but  by  an  outrage  upon  the  rights  of 
peace.  Jt  was  an  act  analogous  to  that  of  searching 
the  dwelling-houses  of  individuals  on  land.  The 
vessel  of  the  navigfator  was  his  dwelling-house  : 
and,  like  that,  in  the  sentiment  of  every  people  that 
cherished  the  blessings  of  personal  liberty  and 
security,  ought  to  bo  a  sanctuary  inviolable  to  the 
hand  of  power,  unless  upon  the  most  unequivocal 
public  necessity,  and  under  the  most  rigorous  per- 
sonal responsibility  of  the  intruder.  Search  at  sea, 
as  recognised  by  all  maritime  nations,  was  confined 
to  the  single  object  of  finding  and  taking  contraband 
of  war.  By  the  law  of  nature,  when  two  nations 
conflict  together  in  war,  a  third,  remaining  neutral, 
retained  all  its  rights  of  peace  and  friendly  inter- 
course with  both.  Each  belligerent,  indeed,  ac- 
quired by  war  the  right  of  preventing  a  third  party 
from  adminisf.  ring  to  his  enemy  tlie  direct  and  im- 
mediate matr  lis  of  war;  and,  as  incidental  to  this 
right,  that  ot  sv  irching  'he  merchant- vessels  of  the 
neutral  oji  the  Ugh  seas  to  find  them.  Even  thus 
limited,  it  was  an  act  of  power  which  nothing  but 
necessity  could  justify,  inasmuch  as  it  could  not  bo 
exercised  but  by  carrying  the  e\  ils  of  war  into  the 
abode  of  peace,  and  by  visiting  the  innocent  with 
some  of  the  penalties  of  guilt.  Among  modern, 
maritime  nations  an  usage  had  crept  in,  not  founded 
upo:(  the  law  of  nature,  never  universally  admitted, 
often  successfully  resisted,  and  against  which  all 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


11.25 


1^ 


■^■2.8 

«f  Kii    12.2 

Ui      , 

m     I 


12.0 


V5 


/. 


^. 


fV*;V 


4v^ 


Photografii'C 

^Sciences 

Corporalton 


^ 


# 


■^ 


<^ 


4S\ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREfT 

W1BSTIR,N.Y.  145M 

(716)S72-4S03 


'^ 


A"^ 

S' 

^ 


1 


o^ 


«« 


'I 


hm 


ill 


92 


had  occasionally  borne  testimony  by  renouncing  it 
in  treaties, — of  extending  this  practice  of  search  and 
seizure  to  all  the  property  of  the  enemy  in  the  ves- 
sel of  a  friend.  The  practice  was,  in  its  origin, 
evidently  an  abusive  and  wrongful  extension  of  the 
search  for  contraband ;  effected  by  the  belligerent, 
because  he  was  armed ;  submitted  to  by  the  neutral, 
because  he  was  defenceless;  and  acquiesced  in  by 
his  sovereign,  for  the  sake  of  preserving  a  remnant 
of  peace  rather  than  become  himself  a  party  to  the 
war.  Having  thus  occasionally  been  practised  by 
all  as  belligerents,  and  submitted  to  by  all  as  neu- 
trals, it  had  acquired  the  force  of  an  usage,  which, 
at  the  occurrence  of  every  war,  the  belligerent  may 
enforce  or  relinquish,  and  which  the  neutral  may 
suffer  or  resist,  at  their  respective  options. 

Mr.  Adams  forbore  to  enlarge  upon  the  farther 
extension  of  this  practice,  by  referring  to  injuries 
which  the  United  States  experienced  when  neutral, 
in  a  case  of  vital  importance ;  because,  in  digesting 
a  plan  for  the  attainment  of  an  object  which  both 
nations  had  equally  at  heart,  it  was  desirable  to 
avoid  every  topic  which  might  excite  painful  sensa- 
tions on  either  side.  He  had  adverted  to  the  inte- 
rest in  question  from  necessity, — it  being  one  which 
could  not  be  lost  sight  of  in  the  then  present  discus- 
sion. 

Mr.  Adams  farther  observed,  that  such  being  the 
view  taken  of  the  right  of  search,  as  recognised  by 
the  law  of  nations,  and  exercised  by  belligerent  pov/- 
ers,  it  was  due  to  candour  to  state  that  his  govern- 


1'  %' 


i\ 


93 


II 


ment  had  an  insuperc:ble  objection  to  its  extension  by 
treaty^  in  any  manner  whatever,  lest  it  might  lead 
to  consequences  still  mcie  injurious  to  the  United 
States,  and  especially  in  the  circumstances  alluded 
to.  That  the  proposed  extension  would  operate,  in 
time  of  peace,  and  derive  its  sanction  from  compact, 
presented  no  inducements  to  its  adoption.  On  the 
contrary,  they  formed  strong  objections  to  it :  every 
extension  of  the  right  of  search,  on  the  principles  of 
that  right,  was  disproved.  If  the  freedom  of  the  sea 
was  abridged  by  compact  for  any  new  purpose,  the 
example  might  lead  to  other  changes.  And  if  the 
operation  of  the  right  of  search  were  extended  to  a 
time  of  peace  as  well  as  war,  a  new  system  would  be 
commenced  for  the  dominion  of  the  sea,  which  might 
eventually,  especially  by  the  abuses  to  which  it 
might  lead,  confound  all  distinctions  of  time  and  of 
circumstances,  of  peace  and  of  war,  and  of  rights 
applicable  to  each  state. 

The  United  States  had,  on  mature  considerations, 
thought  it  most  advisable  to  consider  the  slave-trade 
as  piracy.  They  had  thought  that  it  might,  with 
great  propriety,  be  placed  in  that  class  of  offences ; 
and  that  by  placing  it  there,  they  would  more  effect- 
ually accomplish  the  great  object  of  suppressing 
the  traffic  than  by  any  other  measure  which  they 
could  adopt. 

To  this  measure  none  of  the  objections  which 
had  been  urged  against  the  extension  of  the  right 
of  search  appeared  to  be  applicable.  Piracy  being 
an  offence  against  the  human  race,  had  its  well- 


•.'(I 


h 


I    f 


94 

known  incidents  of  capture  and  punisliment  by 
death  by  the  tribunal  of  every  country.  By  making 
the  slave-trade  piratical,  it  is  the  nature  of  the  crime 
which  draws  after  it  the  necessary  consequence  of 
<;apture  and  punishment.  The  United  States  had 
done  this  by  an  act  of  Congress,  in  relation  to  them- 
selves. They  had  also  evinced  their  willingness, 
and  expressed  their  desire,  that  the  change  should 
become  general  by  the  consent  of  every  other  power, 
hy  which  it  would  be  made  the  law  of  nations.  Till 
then,  they  were  bound  by  the  injunction  of  their 
constitution  to  execute  it,  so  far  as  respects  the 
punishment  of  their  own  citizens,  by  their  own  tri- 
bunals. They  considered  themselves,  however,  at 
liberty,  until  that  consent  was  obtained,  to  co-ope- 
rate, to  a  certain  extent,  with  other  powers,  in  order 
to  ensure  a  more  complete  effect  to  their  respective 
acts;  they  placing  themselves  severally  on  the  same 
ground  by  legislative  provisions. 

It  was  in  this  spirit,  and  for  this  purpose,  that 
Mr.  Adams  had  made  to  the  British  envoy  the  pro- 
position then  under  consideration. 

By  making  the  slave-trade  piratical,  and  attach- 
ing to  it  the  punishment  as  well  as  the  odium  inci- 
dent to  that  crime,  it  was  believed  that  much  had 
been  done  by  the  United  States  towards  suppressing 
it  in  their  vessels  and  by  their  citizens.  If  the 
British  Government  would  unite  in  this  policy,  it 
was  not  doubted  that  the  happiest  consequences 
would  result  from  it.  The  example  of  Great  Bri- 
tain, furnished  in  so  deciRve  a  manner,  would  not 


( 


95 

fail  to  attract  the  attention,  and  command  the  re- 
spect, of  all  her  European  neighbours.  It  was  the 
opinion  of  the  United  States,  that  no  measure  short 
of  that  proposed  would  accomplish  the  object  so 
much  desired ;  and  it  was  the  earnest  wish  of  the 
American  Government  hat  the  Government  of  his 
Britannic  Majesty  might  co-operate  in  carrying  it 
into  effect. 

In  a  despatch  dated  on  the  same  day  with  the  let- 
ter we  have  just  analyzed,  and  addressed  to  Mr.  Rush, 
the  American  minister  in  London,  Mr.  Adams  re- 
capitulates the  incidents  of  the  negotiation  on  this 
subject  between  the  two  governments,  in  1820-21, 
in  which  the  American  Government  had  perempto- 
rily refused  to  concede  the  right  of  search  in  the 
form  in  which  it  was  then  proposed.  He  stated  that 
the  sentiments  of  the  committee  of  the  House  of  Re- 
presentatives, to  whom  had  been  referred  the  subject 
of  the  slave-trade,  were  different  from  those  of  the 
executive  government  in  respect  to  the  right  of 
search ;  but  that  upon  the  passage  of  the  resolution 
above  recited,  it  was  well  ascertained  that  the  senti- 
ments of  the  House  itself  on  that  point  coincided 
with  those  of  the  executive  department,  as  developed 
in  its  previous  correspondence  with  the  British  en- 
voy ;  since  the  House  had  explicitly  rejected  an 
amendment  which  was  moved  to  the  resolution,  and 
which  would  have  expressed  an  opinion  of  that  body 
favourable  to  the  mutual  concession  of  the  right. 

The  despatch  to  Mr.  Rush  then  proceeds  to  ob- 
serve that  the  general  subject  was  resumed  a  short 


I 


s)l 


96 


i>^  ill  I 


if 


time  before  the  decease  of  the  Marquess  of  London- 
derry by  the  British  minister  at  Washington,  Sir  S. 
Canning,  who  suggested  that  since  the  total  disap- 
pearance of  the  British  and  American  flags  from  the 
trade,  as  well  as  those  of  the  nations  vvhich  had  con- 
sented to  confide  the  execution  of  their  prohibitory 
laws  to  the  superintendence  of  British  naval  officers, 
it  continued  to  flourish  under  the  flag  of  France ;  that 
her  laws,though  in  words  and  appearance  equally  se- 
vere in  proscribing  the  traffic,  were  so  remiss  in  the 
essential  point  of  execution,  that  their  effect  was 
rather  to  encourage  than  to  suppress  it;  and  the  Ame- 
rican Government  was  urged  to  join  in  friendly  re- 
presentations to  the  French  Government  by  instruct- 
ing the  American  envoy  at  Paris  to  concur  with  those 
which  the  British  Ambassador  had  been  charged  with 
making,  in  order  to  ensure  a  more  vigilant  fulfilment 
of  the  prohibitory  laws.  This  invitation  was  de- 
clined from  an  impression  that  such  a  concurrence 
might  give  umbrage  to  the  French  Government,  and 
tend  rather  to  irritation  than  to  the  accomplishment 
of  the  object  for  w^hich  it  was  desired.  Mr.  Gallatin 
was,  nevertheless,  instructed  separately  to  bring  the 
subject  to  the  notice  of  the  French  Government,  and 
did  so  by  an  official  note,  communicating  copies  of 
the  recent  laws  of  the  American  Congress  for  the 
suppression  of  the  trade,  and  especially  of  the  act 
w^hich  subjected  every  citizen  of  the  United  States 
who  should  be  polluted  with  it  to  the  penalties  of 
piracy. 

Mr.    Adams  then  refers  to  Sir.  S.  Canning's 


'  1 1' 


97 

letter  to  him  of  the  29th  of  January,  calling  upon 
the  American  Government  either  to  accede  to  the 
mutual  right  of  search,  emphatically  pronounced  in 
his  belief  to  be  the  ow/y  effectual  measure  devised, 
or  which  was  likely  to  be  devised,  "  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  end,  or  to  bring  forward  some 
other  scheme  of  concert,"  which  the  British  envoy 
again  declared  his  readiness  to  examine  with  re- 
spect and  candour,  as  a  substitute  for  that  of  the 
British  Cabinet. 

However  discouraging  this  call  for  an  alternative 
might  be,  thus  coupled  with  so  decisive  a  declara- 
tion of  belief  that  no  effectual  alternative  had  been, 
or  was  likely  to  be,  devised,  an  opportunity  was 
offered,  in  pursuance  of  the  resolution  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  for  proposing  a  substitute,  in  the 
belief  of  the  American  Government,  more  effectual 
than  the  right  of  search  could  be,  for  the  total  and 
final  suppression  of  this  nefarious  trade,  and  less 
liable  either  to  objections  of  principle  or  to  abuses 
of  practice. 

This  proposition  was  accordingly  made  in  Mr. 
Adams'  letter  of  the  31st  of  March,  the  answer  to 
which,  on  the  part  of  Sir.  S.  Canning,  barely  no- 
ticed the  proposition,  to  express  an  opinion  that  his 
government  would  see  in  it  nothing  but  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  necessity  of  farther  and  more 
effiBctual  measures ;  and  then  proceeded  to  an  ela- 
borate review  of  all  the  objections  which,  in  the 
previous  correspondence,  had  been  taken  by  the 
American  Government  to  the  British  connected 
13 


> 


f '  '^ 


08 


!l 


I 


proposal  of  a  mutual  right  of  search  and  a  trial  by- 
mixed  commissions. 

These  objections  had  been  of  two  kinds  :  1st,  to 
the  mixed  commissions,  as  inconsistent  with  the 
American  constitution ;  and  2d,  to  the  right  of 
search,  as  a  dangerous  precedent,  liable  to  abuse  and 
odious  to  the  feelings  and  recollections  of  their 
country. 

In  Sir  S.  Canning's  letter,  the  proposal  of  trial 
by  mixed  commissions  was  formally  withdrawn, 
and  an  alternative  presented  as  practicable,  one 
side  of  which  only,  and  that  the  inadmissible  side, 
was  distinctly  offered,  namely,  that  of  trial  by  the 
courts  of  the  captors. 

The  other  side  of  the  alternative  would,  indeed, 
obviate  their  constitutional  objection,  and  might 
furnish  the  means  of  removing  the  principal  in- 
herent objection  to  the  concession  of  the  right  of 
search — that  by  which  the  searching  officer  is  un- 
der no  responsible  control  for  that  act. 

But  in  their  previous  correspondence  (continued 
Mr.  Adams,)  their  strong  repugnance  to  the  right 
of  search  had  been  adverted  to,  merely  as  matter 
of  fact,  without  tracing  it  to  its  source,  or  referring 
to  its  causes.  The  object  of  this  forbearance  had 
been  to  avoid  all  unnecessary  collision  with  feelings 
and  opinions  which  were  not  the  same  on  the  part 
of  Great  Britain  and  upon  theirs ;  Sir  S.  Canning's 
letter,  however,  professedly  reviewing  all  the  pre- 
vious correspondence  for  the  purpose  of  removing 
or  avoiding  the  American  objections,  and  contest- 


09 


ing  the  analogy  between  the  right  of  search,  as  it 
had  b6en  found  obnoxious  to  America  and  as  then 
proposed  for  her  adoption  by  formal  compact,  Mr. 
Adams  had  been  under  the  absolute  necessity  of 
pointing  out  the  analogies  which  really  existed  be- 
tween them,  and  of  showing  that  as  the  right  of 
search,  independent  of  the  right  of  capture,  and  irre- 
sponsible or  responsible  only  to  the  tribunals  of 
the  captor,  it  was,  as  proposed,  essentially  liable  to 
the  same  objections  as  when  it  had  been  exercised 
as  a  belligerent  right.  Its  encroaching  character, 
founded  in  its  nature  as  an  irresponsible  exercise  of 
force,  and  exemplified  in  its  extension  from  search 
for  contraband  of  war,  to  search  for  enemy's  pro- 
perty, and  thence  to  search  for  9nen  of  the  searcher's 
own  nation,  was  tlius  necessarily  brought  into  view, 
and  connected  with  the  exhibition  of  the  evils  inhe- 
rent in  the  practice,  with  that  of  the  abuses  which 
had  been  found  inseparable  from  it. 

The  United  States  had  declared  ilie  slave-trade, 
so  far  as  pursued  by  llieir  citizens,  piracy ;  and,  as 
such,  made  it  punishable  with  death.  The  resolu- 
tion of  the  House  of  Representatives  recommended 
negotiations  in  order  to  obtain  the  consent  of  the 
civilized  world  to  consider  it  as  piracy  under  the 
law  of  nations.  Those  who  were  guilty  of  this 
offence  against  international  law  might  be  taken  on 
the  high  seas,  and  tried  by  the  Courts  of  any  nation. 
The  principle  which  the  American  Government 
would  wish  to  introduce  into  the  system,  by  which 
the  slave-trade  should  be  recognised  as  piracy  un- 


I 


100 


< 


der  the  law  of  nations,  would  be,  that  though  seiza- 
ble  by  the  officers  and  authorities  of  every  nation, 
the  offenders  should  be  triable  only  by  the  tribunal 
of  the  country  of  the  slave-trading  vessel.  In  com- 
mitting to  foreign  officers  the  power,  even  in  a  case 
of  conventional  piracy,  of  arresting,  confining,  and 
delivering  over  for  trial,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  they  felt  the  necessity  of  guarding  his  rights 
from  all  abuses,  and  from  the  application  of  any 
laws  of  a  country  other  than  his  own. 

A  draft  of  a  convention  was,  therefore,  enclosed 
by  Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Rush,  which,  if  the  British 
Government  should  agree  to  treat  upon  the  subject 
on  the  basis  of  a  legislative  prohibition  of  the  slave- 
trade  by  both  parties,  the  latter  was  authorized  to 
propose  and  conclude.  This  projet  was  not,  how- 
ever, offered  to  the  exclusion  of  any  other  which 
might  be  proposed  on  the  part  of  the  British  Go- 
vernment, nor  any  of  its  articles  to  be  insisted  on  as 
a  sine  qua  nori,  excepting  that  which  made  the 
basis  of  the  whole  arrangement  to  consist  in  the  ex- 
istence of  laws  in  each  country,  rendering  liable 
their  respective  citizens  and  subjects  to  the  penal- 
ties of  piracy  for  the  offence  of  slave-trading,  with  a 
stipulation  to  use  their  influence  with  other  states 
to  the  end  that  the  trade  might  be  declared  to  be 
piracy  under  the  law  of  nations.  It  was  only  from 
considering  the  crime  in  the  character  of  piracy 
that  the  United  States  could  admit  the  visitation  of 
their  merchant-vessels  by  foreign  officers  for  any 
purpose  whatever ;  and,  even  in  that  case,  only  un- 


101 


der  the  most  effective  responsibility  of  the  officer 
for  the  act  of  visitation  itself  and  for  every  thing 
done  under  it. 

Mr.  Rush  was  instructed,  in  case  the  sentiments 
of  the  British  Government  were  averse  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  declaring  the  slave-trade  piracy  by  a  legisla- 
tive act,  not  to  propose  or  communicate  the  projet 
of  convention.  He  would  understand  its  objects  to 
be  two-fold ;  to  carry  into  effect  the  resolution  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  to  meet  the  call  so 
earnestly  urged  by  the  British  Government  for  a 
substitute  for  its  proposal  of  the  mutual  right  of 
search.  The  substitute,  by  declaring  the  offence 
piracy,  carried  with  it  the  right  of  search  for  the 
pirates,  as  existing  in  the  very  nature  of  the  crime. 
But  to  the  concession  of  the  right  of  search,  distinct 
from  that  denunciation  of  the  crime,  the  objections 
of  the  American  Government  remained  in  all  their 
original  force. 

It  was  subjoined  in  this  despatch  that  it  had  been 
intimated  that  the  proposition  for  recognising  the 
slave-trade  as  piracy  under  the  law  of  nations  had 
been  discussed  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  and  that 
the  American  cabinet  was  expecting  the  communi- 
cation of  the  papers  on  this  subject  promised  by 
Lord  Liverpool  to  be  laid  before  Parliament.  Al- 
though the  United  States  had  been  much  solicited 
to  concur  in  the  measures  of  Great  Britain  and  her 
allies  for  the  suppression  of  the  trade,  they  had 
always  been  communicated  to  the  American  Go- 
vernment as  purposes  consummated,  to  which  the 


102 


accession  of  the  United  States  was  desired.  From 
the  general  policy  of  avoiding  to  intermeddle  with 
European  affairs,  they  had  acquiesced  in  this  course 
of  proceedings ;  but  in  order  to  carry  into  effect  the 
resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  to 
pursue  future  discussions  with  great  Britain,  it  was 
obviously  proper  that  communications  should  be 
made  to  the  American  cabinet  of  the  progress  of 
European  negotiations  for  accomplishing  the  com- 
mon purpose,  whilst  it  was  still  in  deliberation. 
If  the  United  States  were  to  co-operate  in  the  result, 
it  was  just  that  they  should  be  consulted,  at  least 
with  regard  to  the  means  which  they  were  invited 

to  adopt.* 
It  will  thus  be  nerceived  that  the  American  exe- 

cutive  government  and  legislature  of  1823-24,  al- 
though sincerely  desirous  of  co-operating  with  Great 
Britain  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade,  conti- 
nued to  repel  the  proposition  of  a  mutual  concession 
even  of  the  limited  right  of  search,  as  a  means  to 
that  end,  so  long  as  it  was  coupled  with  the  conse- 
quence of  carrying  in  the  captured  vessel  for  adju- 
dication before  a  tribunal  of  the  captor's  country,  or 
before  a  mixed  commission  composed  of  judges  ap- 
pointed jointly  by  both  countries.  To  the  former 
they  objected,  a«  identical  with  the  exercise  of  the 
belligerent  right  of  search  in  time  of  peace,  attended 
with  all  its  known  abuses,  of  which  the  American 
people  had  already  had  sufficient  experience;  to  the 
latter,  as  subjecting  their  citizens  to  be  tried  before 

*  Nile's  "  Weekly  Register,"  vol.  xxvi.  pp.  347-353. 


103 


tribunals  partly  foreign,  and  thus  to  be  deprived  of 
those  securities  guaranteed  by  their  happy  constitu- 
tion and  laws.  The  American  cabinet  would  not, 
therefore,  consent  to  negotiate  upon  any  other  basis 
than  that  of  the  enactment  of  a  law  by  the  British 
Parliament  similar  to  the  act  of  Congress  of  1820, 
by  which  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  each  country 
respectively  should  be  subjected  to  the  penalties  of 
piracy  for  the  offence  of  trading  in  African  slaves, 
with  a  mutual  stipulation  to  use  the  respective  in- 
fluence of  the  two  contracting  parties  with  the  other 
maritime  and  civilized  nations  of  the  world,  to  the 
end  that  the  African  slave-trade  might  be  generally 
recognised  as  piracy  under  the  law  of  nations. 

This  proposal  seems  to  be  substantially  the  same 
with  that  made  by  Great  Britain  at  the  Congress  of 
Verona,  with  the  exception  of  two  important  dis- 
tinctions in  these  respective  plans.  These  are, — 
1st,  that  in  the  British  proposal  the  intended  conces- 
sion of  the  right  of  search  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  indissolubly  connected,  as  in  the  American 
plan,  with  the  introduction  of  a  new  public  law,  by 
which  the  offence  of  trading  in  slaves  should  be  de- 
clared piracy  under  the  general  law  of  nations,  and 
thus  subjected  to  the  common  jurisdiction  of  all  ma- 
ritime states,  as  in  the  case  of  piracy  by  the  pre-ex- 
isting law  of  nations.  2d,  That  the  manner  of  exer- 
cising this  jurisdiction  was  not  clearly  explained  in. 
the  British  proposal,  but  was  probably  meant  to  be 
referred  to  the  ordinary  admiralty  jurisdiction  of  the 
captor's  country,  or  to  a  mixed  commission  composed 


104 


¥. 


U  M 


n 


lit 
t'i' 


of  judges  jriintly  chosen  by  both  parties.  Whilst  the 
American  plan  proposed  the  seizure  of  the  offending 
persons  and  property  by  the  commissioned  vessels 
of  war  of  either  party  for  adjudication  in  the  tribu- 
nals of  that  country  to  which  the  captured  persons 
and  property  belonged. 

The  negotiation  which  ensued  in  consequence  of 
the  above  instructions  to  Mr.  Rush  was  finally  con- 
cluded by  a  convention  signed  by  him  with  the 
British  plenipotentiaries,  Mr.  Canning  and  Mr. 
Huskinson,  on  the  13th  of  March,  1824,  on  the  basis 
proposed  by  the  American  Government,  of  the  sepa- 
rate laws  of  the  two  countries  declaring  the  offence 
of  the  slave-trade  to  be  piracy  when  committed  by 
the  citizens  or  subjects  of  either  country  respectively, 
with  a  stipulation  that  the  contracting  parties  should 
use  their  iufluence  respectively,  with  other  maritime 
and  civilized  powers,  to  the  end  that  the  African  slave- 
trade  might  be  declared  piracy  under  the  law  of  na- 
tions. The  convention  provided  for  the  mutual  exer- 
cise of  the  right  of  visitation  and  search,under  a  va- 
riety of  restrictions  and  regulations,  by  the  commis- 
sioned naval  officers  of  each  party,  duly  authorized, 
under  the  instructions  of  their  respective  govern- 
ments, to  cruise  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  America,  and 
the  West  Indies,  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade. 
It  farther  declared  that  any  vessel  of  either  country 
carrving  on  the  illicit  traffic  in  slaves,  might  be  cap- 
tured by  the  commissioned  cruisers  of  the  other, 
and  delivered  over,  together  with  the  persons  found 
on  board,  for  trial  in  some  competent  tribunal,  of 


I  \ 


105 


whichever  of  the  two  countries  they  should  be  found 
on  examination  to  belong  to,  except  when  the  ves- 
sel in  question  should  be  in  the  presence  of  a  ship 
of  war  of  its  own  nation. 

The  convention  thus  concluded  was  submitted, 
on  the  30th  of  April,  1824,  to  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  for  their  advice  and  consent  to  its 
ratification,  as  required  by  the  American  constitu- 
tion in  all  cases  of  treaties  negotiated  by  tho  Presi- 
dent with  foreign  powers.  It  encountered  much 
opposition  in  that  body,  and  finally  passed  on  the 
22d  of  May  by  the  constitutional  majority  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  senators  present,  with  the  following 
important  amendments : — 

1st.  The  provision,  extending  the  cruising  ground 
of  the  armed  vessels  commissioned  against  the  slave- 
trade  to  the  coast  of  America  was  stricken  out,  so 
that  the  limits  within  which  the  right  of  search 
might  be  exercised  were  restricted  to  the  coasjts  of 
Africa  and  the  West  Indies. 

2dly.  A  provision  for  the  trial  as  pirates  of  in- 
dividuals, citizens  or  subjects  of  either  party  found 
on  board  a  vessel  sailing  under  the  flag  of  a  third 
power,  was  also  stricken  out. 

3dly.  A  new  article  was  proposed,  by  which  it 
should  be  free  to  either  of  the  contracting  parties,  at 
any  time,  to  renounce  the  Convention,  giving  six 
months^  notice  beforehand.*^ 

The  British  cabinet  refused  to  accept  the  altera- 


I 


n 


*  Nile's  "  Weekly  Register,"  vol.  rxvi.  p.  233. 
14 


106 


^■. 


e;       .1 


H 


I 


1 1 


tions  proposed  by  the  American  Senate  to  the  Con- 
vention, and  objected  especially  to  that  amendment 
by  which  the  words  "of  America"  were  proposed 
to  be  stricken  out  of  the  2d  article.  In  the  official 
letter  of  Mr.  Secretary  Canning  to  Mr.  Rush,  dated 
the  27th  of  August,  1824,  explanatory  of  this  re- 
fusal, it  was  stated  that  the  right  of  visiting  vessels 
suspected  of  slave- trading,  when  extended  alike  to  the 
West  Indies  and  the  coast  of  America,  implied  an 
equality  of  vigilance,  and  did  not  necessarily  imply 
the  existence  of  grounds  of  suspicion  on  either  side. 
The  removal  of  this  right,  as  to  the  coast  of  Ame- 
rica, and  its  continuance  as  to  the  West  Indies,  could 
not  but  appear  to  imply  the  existence,  on  one  side, 
and  not  on  the  other,  of  a  just  ground,  either  for  sus- 
picion of  misconduct,  or  apprehension  of  an  abuse 
of  authority. 

To  such  an  inequality,  leading  to  such  an  infe- 
rence. His  Majesty's  Government  could  never  advise 
His  Majesty  to  consent.  It  would  have  been  re- 
jected if  proposed  in  the  course  of  negotiation.  It 
could  still  less  be  admitted  as  a  new  demand  after 
the  conclusion  of  the  treaty.* 

In  Mr.  Secretary  Adam's  despatch  to  Mr.  Rush, 
dated  the  29th  May,  1824,  explanatory  of  the  amend- 
ments proposed  by  the  Senate  to  the  Convention,  it 
is  stated  that  the  exception  of  the  coast  of  America 
from  the  seas,  upon  which  the  mutual  power  of  cap- 
turing vessels  under  the  flag  of  either  party  might 

*  Nile's  «'  Weekly  Register,"  vol.  xxvii.  pp.  247,  248. 


I 


?i 


J        I 


107 


be  exercised,  had  reference,  in  the  view  of  the  Se- 
nate to  the  coast  of  the  United  States.  On  no  part 
of  that  coast,  unless  within  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,* 
was  there  any  probability  that  slave-trading  vessels 
would  ever  be  found  ?  The  necesfiity  for  the  exer- 
cise of  the  authority  to  capture  was,  therefore,  no 
greater  than  it  would  be  upon  the  coast  of  Europe. ■\ 
And  we  may  add  to  this  remark  of  Mr.  Adams,  that 
Great  Britain  is  the  last  maritime  power  in  the  world 
that  would  consent  to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of 
search,  in  peace  or  in  war,  upon  those  seas  which 
wash  her  shores, — those  seas  over  which  she  has 
ever  asserted  the  supreme,  absolute,  and  exclusive 
dominion.  Well  might  the  American  Senate  in- 
sist upon  the  exemption  of  the  Atlantic  coast  of  the 
United  States  from  the  exercise  of  a  right  of  search 
hitherto  unknown  to  the  law  of  nations,  when  they 
had  already  suffered  so  much  from  the  abusive  exer- 
cise of  the  belligerent  right  of  search  within  their 
very  bays  and  harbours,  especially  as  it  was  notorious 
that  the  slave-traders  had  ceased  to  frequent  that 
coast  ever  since  the  importation  had  been  effectively 
prohibited  in  1808. 

During  the  whole  course  of  these  negotiations 


*  And  Mr.  Adams  might  have  added  that  the  greater  "part  of  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico  would  be  included  within  the  denomination  of  the 
West  Indies,  Vessels  of  war  cruising  between  the  islands  of 
Cuba  and  the  southern  Cape  of  Florida  on  one  side,  and  the  penin- 
sula of  Yucatan  on  the  other,  would  completely  intercept  slave- 
trade  in  the  gulf.      ' 

t  Nile's  "  Weekly  Register,"  vol.  .xxvii.  p.  246. 


I 


108 


.1 


between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  from 
1818  to  1824,  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  a 
pretention  so  much  as  intimated,  much  less  avowed, 
on  the  part  of  the  latter,  of  a  right  of  visitation  and 
search  to  be  exercised  on  the  high  seas,  in  time  of 
peace,  for  any  purpose  whatever,  independent  of 
special  compact  and  the  free  concession  of  the  power 
on  whose  vessels  the  right  is  to  be  exerted. 

We  now  come  to  the  treaties  concluded  in  1831 
and  1833,  between  France  and  Great  Britain,  for 
the  repression  of  the  slave-trade,  by  which  the  right 
of  search  was  first  conceded  by  the  former  power 
for  this  purpose. 

These  conventions  limit  the  exercise  of  the  right 
thus  conceded,  first,  to  the  western  coast  of  Africa, 
from  the  Cape  Verd  to  the  distance  of  ten  degrees 
south  of  the  equator, — that  is  to  say,  from  the  fif- 
teenth degree  of  north  latitude  to  the  tenth  degree 
of  south  latitude,  and  to  the  thirteenth  degree  of 
west  longitude  from  the  meridian  of  Paris. 

Secondly, — all  around  the  island  of  Madagascar, 
■within  a  zone  of  twenty  leagues  in  breadth. 
Thirdly, — Pit  the  same  distance  from  the  coasts  of 
the  island  of  Cuba.  Fourthly, — at  the  same  dis- 
tance from  the  island  of  Porto  Rico.  Fifthly, — 
at  the  same  distance  from  the  coast  of  Brazil ;  with 
the  provision  that  the  suspected  vessels,  descried 
and  chased  by  the  cruisers  within  the  zone  of 
twenty  leagues,  may  be  visited  by  them  without 
these  limits,  if  having  kept  the  suspected  vessels 
always  in  sight,  they  have  not  been  able  to  reach 


ii 


109 

them  within  that  distance  from  the  coast.  The 
vessel  thus  captured  to  be  carried  in  for  adjudica- 
tion before  the  competent  court  of  the  country  to 
which  they  belong,  there  to  be  tried  according  to 
laws  in  force  in  that  country.* 

It  is  understood  that,  soon  after  the  conclusion  of 
the  supplementary  Convention  of  1833,  between 
Great  Britain  and  France,  for  the  more  effectual 
suppression  of  the  slave-trade,  a  fresh  overture  was 
made  by  the  British  Government  to  that  of  the 
United  States,  to  accede  to  the  principle  of  the  two 
treaties  of  1831  and  1833,  by  yielding  the  right  of 
search  on  similar  terms  and  conditions  as  therein 
stipulated  between  France  and  England.  We  are 
not  aware  that  the  papers  relating  to  this  overture, 
which  is  said  to  have  been  made  by  Lord  Palmer- 
ston  to  the  American  Cabinet,  during  the  adminis- 
tration of  General  Jackson,  have  been  published, 
and  we  are  therefore  unable  to  say  whether  it  ever 
assumed  the  form  of  a  serious  negotiation  between 
the  two  governments. 

We  come  now  to  a  very  remarkable  incident  in 
the  transactions  relating  to  the  suppression  of  the 
slave-trade.  We  refer  to  the  measure  brought  for- 
ward in  the  Briti&h  Parliament,  in  1839,  by  the 
late  ministry,  to  coerce  Portugal  into  a  more  active 
participation  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  object. 
This  measure,  which  might  well  be  called  a  bill  of 
pains  and  penalties  against  an  independent  state, 


*  Martens,  iiouveau  recueil,  torn.  ix.  p.  544. 


no 


! 


although  professedly  aimed  only  at  that  power,  was 
of  a  very  sweeping  and  extraordinary  character,  as 
will  be  explained  by  the  following  extract  from 
the  debate  in  the  House  of  Lords,  on  the  15th 
August,  1839. 


I 


'I 


**  Viscount  Melbourne  rose  to  move  the  second  reading  of  the 
Slave-trade  Suppression  Bill.  The  present  state  of  the  question 
rendered  il  unnecessary  ta  go  at  any  length  into  the  detaib,  or 
state  the  grounds  upon  which  he  hoped  for  their  lordships'  ap- 
proval of  that  motion.  Their  lordships  would  perceive  that  the 
provisions  and  principles  of  that  bill  were  clearly  and  distinctly 
stated  in  the  preamble.  It  was  to  the  effect,  that  persons  who 
might  be  employed  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade  should 
be  indemnified  against  actions  which  might  be  commenced  against 
them;  that  the  Court  of  Admiralty  should  be  empowered  to  adju- 
dicate on  matters  arising  from  these  instructions;  and  also,  that  Go- 
vernment should  be  empowered  to  grant  bounties,  in  cases  of  cap- 
ture made  under  these  directions  of  her  Majesty.  Among  the 
many  nations,  however,  under  whose  flag  that  business  was  now 
carried  on,  he  was  sorry  to  say  the  Portuguese  nation  stood 
pre-eminent.  Their  lordships  knew  how  the  affair  stood  with 
regard  to  that  nation;  and  that,  notwithstanding  the  treaty  into 
which  she  had  entered  on  the  subject,  she  took  no  pains  to  carry 
out  its  provisions.  He  was  not  inclined  to  use  any  strong  lan- 
guage on  this  matter;  but  the  last  notice  which  had  been  presented 
to  the  Portuguese  Government  by  the  British  envoy.  Lord 
Howard  de  Walden,  so  fully  contained  all  the  charges  which 
might  be  made  against  that  nation  in  this  respect,  that  he  would 
only  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  that  document.  The  noble 
Viscount  then  read  the  document  in  question,  the  substance  of 


Ill 


which  was,  an  accusation  on  the  part  of  the  writer  against  Portu- 
gal, for  having,  notwithstanding  several  treaties  at  various  pe- 
riods, still  contiik  .3d  the  slave-trade,  and  refused  to  co-operate 
with  her  Britannic  Majesty  in  its  suppression.  He  (Lord  Mel- 
bourne) conceived  it  unnecessary  to  go  at  greater  length  into  that 
particular  part  of  the  case,  and  more  particularly  as,  in  an  address 
of  their  lordships  to  the  Crown,  they  had  come  to  the  resolution 
of  expressing  their  regret,  that  Portugal  had  not  co-operated  with 
Great  Britain  in  suppressing  the  slave-trade.  Her  Majesty  had 
complied  with  the  prayer  of  that  address,  and  had  accordingly 
given  instructions  to  her  cruisers  to  take  such  measures  as  might 
be  necessary  for  the  purpose  alluded  to,  and  he  (Lord  Melbourne) 
now  presented  that  bill  for  a  second  reading,  which  would  enable 
the  recommendation  of  their  lordships  to  be  carried  out. 

•'  The  Duke  of  Wellington  opposed  the  bill  on  the  same 
grounds  on  which  he  had  been  hostile  to  the  late  measure  intro- 
duced on  the  subject  Some  of  the  clauses,  he  said,  it  would 
be  impossible  to  carry  out  without  a  breach  of  all  our  engagements 
on  this  subject  with  foreign  powers.  He  proceeded  to  remark, 
that  there  were  some  nations,  and  one  great  nation,  in  particular, 
the  United  States,  mth  whom  this  country  had  no  treaties  for 
putting  down  the  slave-trade.  Now,  as  to  searching  the  vessels 
of  the  United  States  for  papers,  if  he  might  judge  from  the  corre- 
spondence of  the  Consul  at  Havanna,  there  was  every  probability, 
not  only  that  there  would  be  no  inclination  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  to  permit  the  detention  of  their  vessels,  and  the  ex- 
amination of  their  papers,  but  that  that  power  would  decidedly 
resist  any  such  attempt  on  our  part.  (Hear,  hear.)  This  was 
another  reason,  in  his  opinion,  why  measures  on  this  subject 
should  originate  with  Government,  who  knew  what  means  there 
were  for  carrying  the  purposes  of  the  measures  into  execution, 


IP    '.    V 


112 


J 


|i<  <! 


!l 


rather  than  with  Parliament.  But  there  was  another  point  of  view 
on  which  to  consider  the  question.  The  officers  and  persons  com- 
manding the  vessels  on  this  service,  under  the  authority  of  the 
Lord  High  Commissioners  of  the  Admiralty,  were  to  be  indemni- 
fied from  all  the  consequences,  but  the  state  could  not  be  indemni- 
fied. (Hear,  hear.)  Now  their  lordships  might  rely  upon  it, 
that  for  every  vessel  of  the  United  States  detained  by  our  cruisers, 
for  however  short  a  time,  this  country  would  be  held  responsible 
for  all  the  demurrage,  and  so  on.  The  Noble  Duke,  after  calling 
on  their  lordships  not  to  take  upon  themselves  the  responsibility 
of  this  measure,  moved  that  it  be  read  a  second  time  that  day  six 
months. 

'*  Lord  Brougham  must  say,  that  the  motion  with  which  the 
Noble  and  Illustrious  Duke  concluded  his  otherwise  able  and  most 
temperate  speech,  gave  him  great  concern.  He  deemed  this  bill 
to  be  of  the  greatest  possible  advantage,  even  if  larger  alterations 
might  be  thought  fit  to  be  made  than  he  had  reason  to  believe 
would  be  necessary,  and  he  hoped  their  lordships  would  not  re- 
ject the  bill  in  its  present  stage,  but  allow  it  to  go  to  a  second 
reading,  and  have  alterations  which  might  be  necessarily  made  in 
committee.  It  could  not,  at  the  same  time,  be  disguised,  that  we 
were  peculiarly  situated  as  to  the  United  States,  because  we 
had  not  concluded  any  treaty  with  them  conferring  the  right  of 
search.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  United  States,  at  the 
very  earliest  period  they  were  enabled  to  do  so  by  the  federal 
constitution,  had  adopted  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade,  and  were 
the  very  first  to  make  it  piracy  for  any  one  of  their  citizens  to 
carry  it  on. 

"  Lord  Wynford  felt  with  the  noble  Duke,  that  if  this  bill 
were  to  pass,  six  months  would  not  elapse  without  seeing  this 
country  at  war  with  every  state  in  Europe  which  had  ships,  for  it 


113 


could  not  be  carried  into  operation  except  by  violating  existing 
treaties.  He  could  not  consent  to  the  second  reading  of  the  bill, 
nor  did  he  see  the  advantage  of  allowing  it  to  go  into  committee, 
as  he  could  not  see  any  alteration  which  could  be  made  in  it,  which 
could  at  all  meet  the  objections  made  by  the  Noble  Duke.  (Hear.) 

**  The  Bishop  of  London  said,  it  was  with  the  most  sincere 
concern  he  felt  himself  called  upon  to  vote  against  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  noble  Duke.  He  had,  ever  since  he  was  able  to 
think  upon  this  subject,  been  of  opinion,  that  this  nation  was  etpe- 
ciaUy  appointed  by  Divine  Providence,  to  undertake  the  task  of 
putting  an  end  to  the  slave-trade,  and  that  her  position  amongst 
the  maritime  nations  of  the  earth,  which  had  given  her  the  power, 
had  at  the  same  time  imposed  the  duty  of  abolishing  this  unsanc' 
tified  traffic. 

♦•  The  Lord  Chancellor  felt  perfectly  satisfied  that  their  lord- 
ships would  all  concur  in  forwarding  this  measure,  but  for  a  mis- 
take into  which  they  appeared  to  have  been  led.  Noble  lords 
seemed  to  thinii,  that,  by  the  enactments  of  this  bill,  French  ships 
were  to  be  searched,  contrary  to  existing  treaties.  If  that  were 
the  case  their  lordships  would  undoubtedly  be  warranted  in  op- 
posing it,  but  these  were  not  the  enactments.  The  object  of  the 
bill  was  to  direct  where  such  search  was  to  be  made,  and  to 
exempt  officers  acting  under  the  direction  of  her  Majesty  from 
being  subject  to  civil  prosecutions  in  this  country  for  acting  under 
those  orders.  Certain  orders  had  been  issued  by  her  Majesty 
with  respect  to  vessels  engaged  in  the  slave-trade ;  and  was  it 
to  be  supposed  that  the  officers  employed  in  the  suppression  of 
this  trade  should  carry  out  these  orders  at  their  own  risk  ?  These 
orders  were  issued  in  consequence  of  an  address  presented  from 
their  lordships  to  her  Majesty ;  these  orders  were  in  accordance 
with  that  address,  and  their  lordships  were  only  called  upon  by 
16 


114 


II" 


this  bill  to  fulfil  the  engagement  entered  into  by  their  address,  and 
the  answer  to  it,  and  to  indemnify  the  oiHcers  who  acted  under 
them. 

*'  Lord  Ellenborouoh  said,  that  if  orders  had  been  issued, 
those  orders  should  be  communicated  to  their  lordships  before 
they  were  called  upon  to  afford  indemnity  to  those  who  were  to 
act  upon  them. 

*'  Lord  Melbourne  said,  that  such  a  course  of  communicating 
the  orders  of  her  Majesty  to  the  House,  was  unprecedented. 

**  Lord  Ellenborouoh  thought,  that  in  order  to  know  what 
measures  would  be  necessary,  it  was  requisite  that  their  lordships 
should  be  made  aware  of  the  nature  of  the  orders  which  had  been 
issued. 

Lord  Minto  said,  that  of  all  the  astounding  doctrines  he  had 
ever  heard,  was  that  which  called  upon  her  Majesty's  ministers  to 
explain  the  terms  of  the  instructions  which  had  been  sent  out  to 
her  Majesty's  cruisers  (hear,  hear,  from  the  ministerial  benches ;) 
such  a  demand  as  this  had  never' before  been  made,  and  he  could 
not  see  how  their  lordships  should  now  require  to  be  put  in  pos- 
session of  instructions  which  were  given,  as  the  noble  Duke  him- 
self had  admitted  they  should  be  given,  on  the  sole  responsibility  of 
the  Government.  There  was  nothing,  he  contended,  in  the  pre- 
sent bill,  calculated  in  the  slightest  degree  to  excite  the  jealousy 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  which  was  as  anxious  as 
we  were  to  put  an  end  to  the  slave-trade ;  nor  did  the  bill  warrant 
the  commission  of  any  act  which  was  not  as  fully  warranted  with- 
out it.  The  real  question  was,  whether  or  not  their  lordships 
would  co-operate  in  carrying  into  effect  the  address  to  which  they 
had  already  ageeed  ? 

"  Lord  Denman,  and  Lord  Colville,  supported  the  bill,  which 
was  approved  by  Lord  Wicklow. 


I'.    M 


115 

**  Their  lordships  then  divided,  when  the  members  were- 

Gontents 39 

Non-contents  ...     28 


Majority  for  bill  .     .     11 
**  The  bill  was  accordingly  read  a  second  time."* 

It  is  well  known  that  this  bill  was  subsequently 
dropped  by  the  Government  in  consequence  of  the 
insuperable  difficulties  it  encountered  in  its  passage. 
This  attempt  to  enforce  the  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade,  against  other  independent  states,  by  a  British 
Act  of  Parliament,  must  appear  the  more  extraor- 
dinary, as  the  complete  exemption  of  the  merchant 
vessels  of  one  nation  from  every  species  and  purpose 
of  search  by  the  armed  and  commissioned  cruisers 
of  another  on  the  high  seas,  in  time  of  peace,  inde- 
pendent of  special  compact,  had  never  been  drawn 
in  question  in  the  various  negotiations  on  the  subject 
of  the  slave-trade  between  Great  Britain  and  other 
maritime  powers,  the  United  States  included,  from 
the  peace  of  Paris,  1814,  to  the  signature  of  the 
treaty  of  1833,  with  France.  Every  line  of  each 
document,  and  every  word  of  each  conference,  im- 
plies, in  the  strongest  manner,  that  no  such  notion 
had  ever  entered  the  minds  of  any  one  of  the  dis- 
tinguished sovereigns,  statesmen,  and  civilians,  who 
had  bestowed  their  attention  on  this  important 
matter. 

Not  only  so,  but  it  is  directly  at  war  with  an 

*  London  "  Times,"  August  i8tli,  1839. 


I 


w^w 


i 


r 


y 


116 

official  communication  made  by  Lord  Palmerston 
to  the  government  of  the  Republic  of  Hayti,  under 
date  of  the  27th  of  January,  1840,  a  few  months 
after  the  Portuguese  slave-trade  suppression  bill 
was  brought  into  the  House  of  Commons  by  his 
lordship.  In  this  communication,  which  is  quoted 
by  Mr.  Stevenson,  in  his  note  to  Lord  Palmerston, 
of  the  27th  of  February,  1841,  the  latter  refers  to  a 
law  passed  in  1839,  by  the  Haytian  Government, 
providing  that  any  vessel,  whether  Haytian  or  other- 
wise, found  in  the  act  of  slave-trading,  should  be 
seized  and  brought  into  a  port  of  the  Republic  for 
adjudication.     The  communication  states,  that — 

"  Her  Majesty's  Government  wishes  to  draw  the  attention  of 
the  Haytian  Government  to  a  matter  of  form  in  this  law,  which 
may  possibly  give  rise  to  embarrassments.  The  law  enacts,  that 
all  vessels,  whether  Haytian  or  foreign,  which  may  be  found  in 
the  act  of  slave-trading,  shall  be  seized  and  brought  into  a  Hay- 
tian port.  Now,  Hayti  has  undoubtedly  a  full  right  to  make  such 
an  enactment  about  her  own  citizens  and  ships,  but  her  Majesty's 
Government  apprehend  that  Hayti  has  no  right  to  legislate  for  the 
ships  and  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  other  states.  That  in  time  of 
peace,  no  ships  belonging  to  one  state  have  a  right  to  search  and 
detain  ships  sailing  under  the  flag  of,  and  belonging  to  another  state, 
without  the  permission  of  such  state,  which  permission  is  generally 
signified  by  treaty ;  and  if  Haytian  cruisers  were  ta  stop,  search, 
and  detain  merchant  vessels  sa'ling  under  the  flag  of,  and  be- 
longing to  another  country,  even  though  such  vessels  were  en- 
gaged in  the  slave-trade,  the  state  to  which  such  vessels  belonged 
would  have  just  grounds  for  demanding  satisfaction  and  repara- 


N 


i 


117 


tion  from  Hayti,  unletii  auch  mate  had  previously  given  to  Hayti, 
by  treaty,  the  right  of  aeaich  and  detention." 

The  first  lime  we  hear  of  such  a  pretension,  as 
that  repelled  by  the  British  Government  in  the  above 
communication,  being  brought  forward  by  that  Go- 
vernment in  a  diplomatic  form,  is  in  the  correspon- 
dence between  Mr.  Stevenson,  the  American  Minis- 
ter in  London,  and  the  late  and  present  British 
Secretaries  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  the  Lords 
Palmerston  and  Aberdeen. 

As  the  documents  containing  this  correspondence 
are  before  the  public  in  an  accessible  form,  having 
appeared  in  almost  all  the  public  journals  of  both 
Europe  and  America,  we  deem  it  superfluous  to  sub- 
ject the  papers  to  that  full  and  minute  analysis  which 
we  have  thought  necessary  in  respect  to  the  previous 
communications  between  the  two  Governments  on 
the  same  subject.  We  shall  therefore  endeavour  to 
collect,  in  a  summary  form,  from  the  entire  corres- 
pondence, the  real  nature  and  import  of  the  British 
pretension.  In  doing  this,  we  think  it  but  fair  to- 
wards the  British  Government  to  bestow  more  par- 
ticular attention  on  the  note  transmitted  from  the 
Foreign  Office  to  the  American  Minister  in  London, 
since  the  late  change  of  ministry ;  not  because  we 
do  not,  privately  speaking,  attach  an  equal  impor- 
tance to  documents  written  and  signed  by  Lord 
Palmerston,  as  to  papers  proceeding  from  under  the 
hand  of  his  noble  successor  in  office.  All  that  we 
mean  to  say,  is,  that  as  our  country  has  to  deal  in 


M 


'I!    I' 


il'l 


1 

1 

'   'l 

''   1 

■  '*. 

1 

i 

i 
■ 

1 

':,    i 
i     , 

J 

1 '  • 


111' 


1  - 


118 


this  momentous  matter  with  the  present  British  Go- 
vernment, it  is  more  impo.  nt  for  us  to  determine 
what  are  its  r^al  views  and  intentions  in  respect  to 
the  question,  so  far  as  they  can  bo  collected  from  its 
official  language,  than  to  make  the  subject  of  com- 
mentary and  criticism  expressions  which  we  fain 
would  hope  were  hastily  and  incautiously  used,  in 
conference  Ot  in  correspondence,  by  the  eminent 
statesmen  who  lately  filled  the  office  of  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs. 

The  several  cases  of  American  vessels  seized  by 
British  cruisers  in  the  African  seas  present  exam- 
ples, but  too  flagrant,  of  the  abuses  to  which  the  ex- 
ercise of  such  a  right  as  that  claimed  by  Great  Bri- 
tain on  this  occasion  may  be  liable.  The  proceed- 
ings of  the  British  cruisers  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  in 
one  of  these  cases  in  particular  (that  of  the  Mary,)  is 
justly  described  by  Mr.  Stevenson,  in  his  correspon- 
dence with  Lord  Palmerston,  "  as  wanting  nothing 
to  give  them  the  character  of  a  most  flagrant  and 
daring  outrage,  and  very  little,  if  anj-  thing,  to  sink 
them  into  an  act  of  open  and  direct  piracy."  In- 
deed, this  attempt  to  exercise  the  rights  of  war  in 
time  of  peace  must  not  only  be  attended  with  all  the 
evils  consequent  npon  the  exercise  of  the  right  of 
search  for  enemy's  property  and  contraband  of  war; 
but  as  Lord  Stowell  has  so  justly  observed,  has  an 
inevitable  tendency  to  lead  to  "  gigantic  mischief 
and  universal  war,"  by  provoking  forcible  resistance 
on  the  part  of  the  navigator,  whose  commerce  is  thus 
interrupted  by  the  uncontrolled  violence  of  foreign 


119 


cruiiiers.  The  abuse  of  a  right,  such  as  the  bellige- 
rent right  of  visitation  and  search,  which  all  nations 
have  occasionally  exercised  in  turn,  and  none  have 
at  any  time  denied  (at  least  so  far  as  respects  con- 
traband and  blockade)  to  be  authorized  by  the  cus- 
tomary, if  not  by  the  natural  law  of  nations,  may 
not  be  attended  with  the  same  fatal  consequences 
Bs  are  to  be  apprehended  from  the  exercise  of  the 
right  now  claimed.  The  exercise  of  the  belligerent 
right  of  search  may  be  effectually  controlled  by  the 
Courts  of  Admiralty  of  the  belligerent  state,  pro- 
ceeding according  to  their  established  rules  in  de- 
creeing costs  and  damages  against  the  captor,  in 
cases  of  seizure,  without  such  reasonable  grounds 
of  suspicion  as  amount  to  probable  cause.  A  forci- 
ble resistance  to  the  exercise  of  this  right  by  the 
belligerent  cruiser,  on  the  part  of  the  neutral  navi- 
gator, may  be  regarded  as  an  unlawful  act  of  vio- 
lence, and  punished  in  extreme  cases  even  by  the 
confiscation  of  his  property.  But  where  is  the  ma- 
ritime code  which  instructs  us  in  the  nature  of  the 
secTirities  provided  against  the  abuse  of  the  pre- 
tended right  now,  for  the  first  time,  asserted  in  the 
face  of  the  world?  In  what  court,  and  by  what 
law,  is  the  suspected  vessel  to  be  tried  ?  If.  the 
seizure  were  made  in  time  of  war,  the  adjudi- 
cation must  necessarily  take  place,  according  to 
the  well-known  law  and  usage  of  nations,  in  the 
prize-court  of  the  country  of  the  captor,  who  is  re- 
sponsible to  his  own  government,  whose  commis- 
sion he  bears  foi  his  acts  unaer  that  commission ; 


\i 


'M 


u 


!1 


}  ' 


! .; , 


Itj   M 


120 


and  that  government  again  is  responsible  over  to 
the  neutral  state,  whose  subjects  may  complain  of 
the  injury  by  them  sustained.  If  the  seizure  be 
made  of  a  foreign  vessel  in  time  of  peace  or  of 
war,  under  the  municipal  laws  of  the  captor's  coun- 
try, prohibiting  the  slave-trade,  then  it  can  only 
take  place  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  that 
state ;  and  a  seizure  upon  the  high  seas,  or  within 
the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  a  third  power,  would 
be  so  plainly  illegal,  that  we  may  lay  it  out  of  the 
question.  The  same  thing  may  be  affirmed  of  an 
attempt  to  seize  for  a  breach  of  the  municipal  laws 
of  the  country  to  which  the  captured  vessel  belongs. 
If,  again,  the  seizure  be  made  of  a  British  vessel, 
suspected  to  have  usurped  the  flag  and  pass  of  a 
foreign  state,  then  the  validity  of  the  seizure,  and 
the  question  of  jurisdiction  itself  must  be  made  to 
depend  upon  the  event  of  the  trial.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  seizure  be  made  under  the  existing  treaties 
between  Great  Britian,  the  Netherlands,  Spain,  &c., 
the  trial  must  be  had  in  the  mixed-commi'-iion- 
court,  created  by  those  treaties — a  stipulation,  to  the 
like  of  which  the  American  Government  has  con- 
stantly refused  its  assent.  If  it  be  made  under  the 
treaties  of  1831  and  1833,  between  Great  Britain 
and  France,  or  under  the  more  recent  treaty  be- 
tween the  five  great  European  powers,  signed  at 
London,  on  the  20th  December  last,  the  vessel 
seized  k  ust  be  delivered  over  for  trial  to  the  compe- 
tent tribunal  of  the  nation  to  which  she  is  suspected 
to  belong.     But  how  can  such  tribunal  acquire 


fit 


of 


121 

jurisdiction  to  determine  the  national  character  of 
the  vessels  of  a  third  power,  an  absolute  stranger  to 
the  compact  under  which  the  jurisdiction  is  to  be 
exercised. 

All  this  is  said  upon  the  supposition  that  the  visita- 
tion is  followed  by  search,  and  the  search  by  seizure, 
and  the  seizure  by  carrying  in  for  adjudication.  If 
the  visitation  is  not  accompanied  by  search,  it  is  an 
idle  ceremony,  and  a  wanton  interruption  of  the 
navigator  in  the  prosecution  of  his  voyage.  It  is 
by  search  only,  by  examining  the  ship's  papers, 
construction,  and  cargo,  by  interrogating  her  offi- 
cers and  crew,  that  the  boarding  officer  can  ascer- 
tain whether,  in  his  judgment,  she  is  employed  in 
the  slave-trade.  And  it  is  only  by  seizing  and  car- 
rying in  for  adjudication,  that  it  can  be  lawfully 
determined  by  some  competent  authority  whether 
his  suspicions  are  w^ell  or  ill-founded.  We  assert, 
therefore,  that  it  aflfords  a  violent  presumption 
against  the  existence  of  such  a  right,  that  its  exer- 
cise may  draw  after  it  consequences  far  more  fatal 
than  those  attending  the  ordinary  belligerent  right 
of  search,  which  may  always  be,  and  sometimes 
actually  is,  restrained  by  known  rules  of  practice, 
which  make  a  part  of  the  general  law  of  nations  as 
founded  on  usage. 

On  examining  the  letter  of  Lord  Aberdeen  to 
Mr.  Stevenson  of  the  13th  October,  1841,  we  con- 
fess ourselves  unable  to  collect  from  it  the  real  na- 
ture of  the  distinction  alleged  to  exist  between  the 
right  claimed  by  the  British  Government  and  the 
16 


11 


ll 


nr 


f 


!    ; 


hwi 


1 


■ ' 


r. 


122 

ordinary  right  of  visitation  and  search.  If  his  lord- 
ship has  failed  in  expressing  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness and  precision  the  conceptions  of  his  own  mind, 
it  is  most  certainly  not  for  want  of  the  requisite 
talents  as  a  writer, — since  his  letter  is  written  with 
the  greatest  terseness  and  elegance, — but  ought 
rather  to  be  attributed  to  the  embarrassment  occa- 
sioned by  the  intrinsic  difficulties  of  a  bad  cause 
left  him  as  an  official  legacy  by  his  predecessor, 
and  which  the  joint  abilities  of  both  might  well 
prove  insufficient  to  maintain.  Be  this  as  it  may. 
Lord  Aberdeen  expressly  asserts  that  he  ''  renounces 
all  pretension  on  the  part  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment to  visit  and  search  American  vessels  in  time 
of  peace.  Nor  is  it  as  American  that  such  vessels 
are  ever  visited. 

An  attempt  appears  here  to  be  made  to  distin- 
guish between  a  right  to  visit  and  a  right  to  search. 
Now  we  have  no  hesitation  in  affirming  that  this 
distinction  has  no  foundation  whatever  in  the  mari- 
time law  of  nations,  and  the  usage  of  the  Admiralty 
courts  of  any  country.  The  "  right  of  visitation 
and  search"  is  the  appropriate  technical  term 
always  used  by  British  civilians  to  express  the  belli- 
gerent right-^a  term  which  has  a  known  sense  and 
value,  and  is  the  exact  equivalent  of  the  term  droit 
de  visite  used  by  the  continental  jurists.  We  re- 
peat, that  if  the  visitation  is  not  accompanied  by 
search,  it  is  an  empty  mockery,  and  a  wanton  in- 
terruption of  the  navigator's  voyage.  And  in  con- 
firmation of  this  assertion,  we  may  observe  that  in 


123 


all  the  cases  brought  to  the  consideration  of  the 
British  Government,  by  Mr.  Stevenson,  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  instructions  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment, the  visitation  was  accompanied  with  the  most 
rigorous  search  of  persons  and  papers,  of  vessel 
and  cargo,  followed,  in  some  instances,  by  a  pro- 
tracted detention,  and  in  others  by  a  carryirj  into 
port  for  adjudication.  We  have  here,  then,  a  prac- 
tical commentary  upon  the  text  of  these  official 
documents,  which  demonstrates  that  the  right 
claimed  is  that  of  visitation  and  search.  We  may 
also  observe,  that  the  same  remark,  made  by  Mr. 
Adams,  as  to  the  concession  of  the  right  by  compact, 
would  apply  to  a  submission  to  its  exercise  without 
compact;  that  is  to  say,  that  if  the  visitation  be  not 
carried  out  by  search,  it  "  would  reduce  the  right 
itself  to  a  power  merely  nominal,"  the  submission 
to  which  "  would  serve  rather  to  mark  the  sacrifice 
of  a  great  and  precious  principle,  than  to  attain  the 
end  for  which  it  would  be  given  up."* 

But  Lord  Aberdeen  goes  on  to  observe  in  the 
above-quotrtd  passage  of  his  note  to  Mr.  Stevenson  : 
"  Nor  is  it,  as  American,  that  such  vessels  are  ever 
visited." 

In  answer  to  this  suggestion,  we  would  remark, 
that  neither  is  the  neutral  vessel  visited,  in  time  of 
war,  as  neutral;  but  she  is  even  visited,  and  cap- 
tured, and  detained,  and  carried  in  for  adjudiration, 
as  being  suspected  to  be  an  enemy,  either  literally 

*  Mr.  Secretary  Adams'  Letter  to  Sir  S.  Canning,  June  24,  1823. 


I 


i| 


nn 


124 


1 1 


I  * 


"  II 


such,  or  as  having  forfeited  her  neutral  character 
b}'  violating  her  neutral  duties.  Hence  the  formula 
of  a  sentence  of  condemnation  in  the  Prize  Court 
always  declares  the  ship  or  goods  condemned  to  be 
enemy's  property;  and  that,  in  all  cases,  whether  the 
property  really  belongs  to  the  enemy,  or  is  assimi- 
lated to  that  of  an  enemy  by  the  offence  of  carrying 
contraband,  by  breach  of  blockade,  or  other  unneu- 
tral conduct,  which  is  visited  by  the  Prize  Court 
with  the  penalty  of  confiscation.  It  is  therefore 
very  little  satisfaction  to  the  master  or  proprietor  of 
an  American  vessel  to  be  told  that  he  is  not  visited 
as  an  American^  if  the  visitation  be  actually  followed 
by  the  most  rigorous  search,  by  protracted  deten- 
tion, and  by  sending  into  port  for  trial ;  by  all  which 
his  voyage  may  be  broken  up,  his  cargo  may  perish, 
and  his  crew  fall  victims  to  a  pestilential  climate. 
We  are  not  now  arguing  from  the  abuse  against 
the  lawful  use  of  an  incontestable  and  well-defined 
right ;  although  it  appears  from  the  documents  be- 
fore us  that  these  supposed  consequences  are  by  no 
means  imaginary.  We  shall,  of  course,  be  under- 
stood as  only  meaning  to  insist  upon  the  considera- 
tion that  it  is  perfectly  indiffdent  to  the  American 
merchant  and  navigator,  whether  his  voyage  is  in- 
terrupted because  he  is  an  American,  and  suspected 
of  violating  the  laws  of  his  own  country,  or  because 
he  is  suspected  of  not  being  a  bona  fide  American, 
and  of  violating  the  laws  and  treaties  of  other 
countries  under  a  false  garb.  Supposing  him  to  be 
engaged  in  an  innocent  commerce,  all  tlxis  is  per- 


W^i 


125 


fectly  indifferent  to  him  ;  and  even  supposing  him 
to  be  engaged  in  a  trade  prohibited  by  the  laws  of 
his  own  country,  he  has,  as  we  maintain,  a  perfect 
right  to  be  exempt  upon  the  high  seas  in  time  of 
peace,  from  visitation  and  search,  and  seizure  and 
detention  for  trial,  by  foreign  officers  and  foreign 
courts  of  justice.  In  order  to  establish  the  contrary 
doctrine,  it  will  be  necessary  to  show  in  support  of 
it  so 716  treaty  to  which  his  own  country  is  a  con- 
tracting party,  or  some  public  law  universally  recog- 
nised as  forming  a  part  of  the  general  international 
code.  But  no  such  treaty,  and  no  such  law,  has,  or 
can  be  shown  to  exist. 

Lord  Aberdeen  subjoins  to  this  assurance,  that 
American  vessels  are  not  visited,  in  time  of  peace, 
as  American,  the  startling  assertion  that "  it  has  been 
the  invariable  practice  of  the  British  navy,"  and,  as 
his  lordship  believes,  "  of  all  the  navies  in  the  world, 
to  ascertain  by  visit  the  real  nationality  of  merchant- 
vessels  on  the  high  seas,  if  there  be  good  reason  to 
apprehend  their  illegal  character." 

We  might  ask  in  vain  for  the  evidence  of  the 
existence,  in  point  of  fact,  of  this  universal  and  in- 
variable practice ;  but  the  necessity  for  this  inquiry 
will  be  superseded,  by  showing  that  it  has  no  sanc- 
tion in  law.  And  for  this  purpose,  a  reference  to 
the  so-often  quoted  judgment  of  Lord  Stowell,  in 
the  case  of  the  Louis,  will  be  amply  sufficient.  In 
that  judgment,  that  learned  civilian  unequivocally 
asserts,  "that  no  authority  can  be  found,  which 
gives  any  right  of  visitation  or  interruption  over 


W 


n 


i 


B 


128 

the  vessels  and  navigation  of  other  States,  on  the 
high  seas,  except  what  the  right  of  war  gives  to 
belligerents  against  neutrals."  The  assertion  of 
Lord  Stowell,  that  no  such  authority  can  be  found, 
must  be  considered  as  conclusive  against  its  exist- 
ence. 

But  let  us  examine  a  little  more  closely  the  asser- 
tion of  Lord  Aberdeen.  He  does  not  state  what 
is  to  be  the  consequence  of  the  visitation,  supposing 
that  the  suspicions  excited,  by  whatever  cause,  are 
confirmed  in  the  opinion  of  the  boarding-officer,  by 
the  examination  which  may  ensue.  Visitation  is 
but  means  to  an  end,  and  unless  accompanied  by 
some  examination  of  the  papers,  the  crew,  the  ves- 
sel, and  the  cargo,  it  would  be  (as  before  remarked) 
a  mere  idle  ceremony,  and  wanton  interruption  of 
the  navigator  in  the  prosecution  of  his  voyage, 
attended  with  greater  probable  injury  to  him,  than 
possible  advantage  to  the  interests  of  maritime  police. 
Nor  is  it  stated  what  is  the  precise  nature  of  the 
"  illegal  character,"  the  suspicion  of  which  is  here 
assumed,  as  justifying  the  "invariable  practice  of 
all  the  navies  in  the  world,  to  ascertain  by  visit  the 
real  nationality  of  merchant-vessels  met  with  on  the 
high  seas."  Is  it,  we  would  ask,  of  such  an  illegal 
character  as  may  be  manifested  by  acts  prohibited 
by  the  laws  and  treaties  of  the  country  to  which 
the  vessel  belongs,  or  by  the  laws  and  treaties  of  the 
country  to  which  the  armed  cruiser  belongs,  or 
finally  by  the  general  law  of  nations  1  To  each  of 
these  suppositions  very  distinct  considerations  be- 


127 


>, 


long ;  but  we  will  confine  our  observations  to  the 
last — that  is  to  say,  to  the  supposition  that  the  ves- 
sel has  been  guilty  of  some  offence  against  the  law 
of  nations,  such  as  piracy^  for  example,  by  which, 
of  course,  we  mean  international  piracy,  and  not 
merely  that  which  is  declared  to  be  such  by  the 
municipal  statutes  of  a  particular  country. 

On  this  part  of  the  subject  we  have  fortunately 
the  aid  of  the  highest  judicial  authority,  to  confirm 
the  conclusions  of  our  own  minds  as  to  the  legal 
principles  which  ought  to  be  applied  to  it,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  case  of  the  Marianna  Flora,  a  Por- 
tuguese armed  merchant- vessel,  bound  on  a  voyage 
from  Brazil  to  Lisbon,  and  captured  in  1821,  by  a 
gallant  officer  of  the  American  navy,  then  employed 
in  cruising  with  a  public  ship-of-war  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  President's  instructions,  for  slave- 
traders  and  pirates.  The  capture  was  made,  after 
an  accidental  combat  between  the  two  vessels,  un- 
der mutual  misapprehension,  each  supposing  the 
other  to  be  a  pirate.  The  Portuguese  vessel  and 
cargo,  being  sent  into  an  American  port  for  trial, 
under  an  act  of  Congress  passed  in  1819,  as  having 
been  guilty  of  a  piratical  aggression  against  the 
American  cruiser,  were  restored  to  the  claimants  by 
the  consent  of  the  captors.  The  question  as  to 
costs  and  damages,  was  brought  before  the  Supreme 
Federal  Court  in  1826,  which  enlightened  tribunal 
determined,  that  had  the  Portuguese  vessel  been 
really  guilty  of  a  piratical  aggression,  wantonly 


^ 


II 


Mi 


M' 


128 


committed  on  the  American  cruiser,  the  act  of  Con- 
gress would  not  only  have  warranted  her  capture, 
but  confiscation;  and  that  whatever  responsibility 
might  be  incurred  by  the  nation  to  foreign  powers  in 
executing  such  laws,  there  could  be  no  doubt  that 
courts  of  justice  were  bound  to  administer  and  obey 
them.  The  Court  also  repeated  its  former  decision 
in  the  case  of  the  Antelope,  that  the  right  of  visita- 
tion and  search  of  vessels,  armed  or  unarmed, 
navigating  the  ocean,  in  time  of  peace,  does  not  be- 
long to  the  public  ships  of  any  nation.  This  right 
was  strictly  a  belligerent  right,  allowed  by  the  gene- 
ral consent  of  nations  in  time  of  war,  and  limited  to 
those  occasions.  It  was  true  that  it  had  been  held 
in  the  Courts  of  the  United  States,  that  American 
ships  offending  against  their  laws,  and  foreign  ships, 
in  like  manner,  offending  within  their  jurisdiction, 
might  afterwards  be  pursued  and  seized  upon  the 
ocean,  and  rightfully  brought  into  their  ports  for 
adjudication.  This,  however,  had  never  been  sup- 
posed to  draw  after  it  any  right  of  visitation  and 
search.  The  party,  in  such  cases,  seized  at  his 
peril.  If  he  established  the  forfeiture  he  was  justi- 
fied ;  if  he  failed,  he  must  make  full  compensation 
in  damages. 

Upon  the  ocean,  then,  in  time  of  peace,  all  pos- 
sessed an  entire  equality.  It  was  the  common  high- 
way of  all,  appropriated  to  the  use  of  all;  and  no 
one  could  vindicate  to  himself  a  superior  or  ex- 
clusive prerogative  there.  Every  ship  sailed  there 
with  the  unquestionable  right  of  pursuing  her  own 


129 


lawful  business  without  interruption ;  but,  whatever 
might  be  that  business,  she  was  bound  to  pursue  it 
in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  violate  the  rights  of 
others.  The  general  maxim  in  such  cases  was,  sic 
utere  tuo,  ut  non  alienum  isedas. 

It  had  been  argued  that  no  ship  has  a  right  to  ap- 
proach another  at  sea,  and  that  every  ship  had  a 
right  to  draw  round  her  aline  of  jurisdiction,  within 
which  no  other  is  at  liberty  to  intrude.  In  short, 
that  she  might  appropriate  so  much  of  the  ocean  as 
she  might  deem  necessary  for  her  protection,  and 
prevent  any  nearer  approach. 

This  doctrine  appeared  to  the  Court  to  be  novel, 
and  was  not  supported  by  any  authority.  It  went 
to  establish  upon  the  ocean  a  territorial  jurisdiction, 
like  that  which  is  claimed  by  all  nations  within  can- 
non-shot of  their  shores,  in  virtue  of  their  general 
sovereignty.  But  the  latter  right  was  founded  upon 
the  principle  of  sovereign  and  permanent  appropria- 
tion, and  had  never  been  successfully  asserted  be- 
yond it.  Every  vessel  undoubtedly  had  a  right  to 
the  use  of  so  much  of  the  ocean  as  she  occupied  and 
as  was  essential  to  her  own  movements.  Beyond 
this,  no  exclusive  right  had  ever  been  recognised* 
and  the  Court  saw  no  reason  for  admitting  its  ex- 
istence. Merchant  ships  are  in  the  constant  habit 
of  approaching  each  other  on  the  ocean,  either  to 
relieve  their  own  distress,  to  procure  information, 
or  to  ascertain  the  character  of  strangers;  and, 
hitherto,  there  has  never  been  supposed  in  such  con- 
duct any  breach  of  the  customary  observances,  or 
17 


il^: 


\ 


I 


\  1 


130 


of  the  strictest  principles  of  the  law  of  nations.  In 
respect  to  ships  of  war,  sailing*,  as  in  the  present 
case,  under  the  authority  of  their  Government,  to 
arrest  pirates,  and  other  public  offenders,  there  was 
no  reason  why  they  might  not  approach  any  vessels 
descried  at  sea,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their 
real  character.  Such  a  right  seemed  indispensable 
for  the  fair  and  discreet  exercise  of  their  authority ; 
and  the  use  of  it  could  not  be  justly  deemed  indi- 
cative of  any  design  to  insult  or  injure  those  they 
approached,  or  to  impede  them  in  their  lawful  com- 
merce. On  the  other  hand,  as  it  was  as  clear  that 
no  ship  is,  under  such  circumstances,  bound  to  lie 
by,  or  wait  the  approach  of  any  other  ship.  She  is 
at  full  liberty  to  pursue  her  voyage  in  her  own  way, 
and  to  use  all  necessary  precautions  to  avoid  any 
suspected  sinister  enterprize  or  hostile  attack.  She 
had  a  right  to  consult  her  own  safety,  but  at  the 
same  time  she  must  take  care  not  to  violate  the 
rights  of  others.  She  might  use  any  precautions, 
dictated  by  prudence  or  the  fears  of  her  officers, 
either  as  to  delay,  or  the  progress,  or  course  of  her 
voyage ;  hut  she  was  not  at  Jiberty  to  inflict  injuries 
upon  other  innocent  parties,  simply  because  of  con- 
jectural dangers.  These  principles  seemed  to  the 
court  the  natural  result  of  the  common  duties  and 
rights  of  nations  navigating  the  ocean  in  time  of 
peace.  Such  a  state  of  things  carried  with  it  very 
different  obligations  and  responsibilities  from  those 
which  belonged  to  public  war,  and  w?is  not  to  be 
confounded  with  it. 


131 


It  had  also  been  argued  that  there  was  a  general 
obUgation  upon  armed  ships,  in  exercising  the  right 
of  visitation  and  search,  to  keep  at  a  distance  out  of 
cannon-shot,  and  to  demean  themselves  in  such  a 
manner  as  not  to  endanger  neutrals.  The  court 
stated  that  it  might  be  a  decisive  answer  to  this  ar- 
gument, that  here  no  right  of  visitation  and  search 
was  attempted  to  be  exercised.  Lieutenant  Stock- 
ton did  not  claim  to  be  a  belligerent  entitled  to 
search  neutrals  on  the  ocean.  He  did  not  approach 
or  subdue  the  Marianna  Flora  in  order  to  compel 
her  to  submit  to  his  search,  but  with  other  motives. 
He  took  possession  of  her,  not  because  she  resisted 
the  right  of  search,  but  because  she  attacked  him  in 
a  hostile  manner,  without  any  reasonable  cause  or 
provocation. 

The  Court,  applying  these  principles  to  the  case 
in  judgment,  determined  that  the  gallant  officer  be- 
fore it,  was  not,  under  the  cir(;umslances,  liable  in 
costs  and  damages  for  seizing  and  bringing  in  the 
Portuguese  vessel,  which,  by  her  own  improper  con- 
duct had  led  him  into  the  mistake  he  had  commit- 
ted.* But,  after  all,  the  captor  was  in  this  case  (to 
use  an  expression  of  Lord  Stowell)  "  sa\ed  as  by 
fire;"  and  the  extieme  caution  the  Court  manifest, 
in  limiting  the  right  of  public  armed  vessels  cruising 
for  pirates  and  slave-traders  on  the  high  seas,  to  the 
mere  authority  of  approaching  suspicious  vessels 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their  real  character, 

*  Wheaton's  Reports,  vol.  xi.  pp.  39,  40.    The  Marianna 
Flora. 


^ 


IP 


132 

by  any  means  short  of  actuai  visitation  and  search, — 
shows  what  would  have  been  its  opinion  of  the  pre- 
tension now  advr^uced  bv  the  British  Government, 
of  a  right  to  ascertain,  by  visitation  and  search,  the 
national  character  of  such  vessels. 

Lore!  Aberdeen  proceeds  in  his  letter  of  the  13th 
October,  1841,  to  Mr.  Stevenson,  to  state  the  parti- 
cular nature  and  extwiit  of  the  British  claim  of  a 
right  of  visitatiov,  as  he  insists  upon  calling  it,  on 
board  vessels  navigating  the  high  seas  in  time  of 
peace. 


m 

1 


"  In  certain  latitudes,  and  for  a  particular  object,  the  vessels, 
referred  to  are  visited,  not  as  Ameilcan,  but  either  as  British  ves- 
sels engaged  in  an  unlawful  traffic,  and  carrying  the  flag  of  the 
United  States  for  a  criminal  purpose,  or  as  belonging  to  states 
which  have  by  treaty  ceded  to  Great  Britain  the  right  of  search, 
and  which  right  it  is  attempted  to  defeat  by  fraudulently  bearing 
the  protecting  flag  of  the  Union;  or,  finally  they  are  visited  as 
piratical  outlaws,  possessing  no  claim  to  any  flag  or  nationality 
whatever.'* 

We  may  be  excused  for  neglecting  the  qualifi- 
cation of  the  right  thus  claimed,  by  limi  ^ng  it  to 
certain  latitudes  and  to  a  particular  object,  because, 
if  the  right  exist,  it  may  be  extended  at  the  plea- 
sure of  the  power  claiming  it  to  both  the  great 
oceans  which  encircle  the  glooe,  and  to  any  other 
object  which  it  may  hereafter  suit  the  ever-craving 
appetite  of  dominion  to  embrace  within  its  grasp. 
We  will,  therefore,  only  observe  that  here  are  three 


133 

classes  of  cases  enumerated,  in  which  the  right  of 
visitation  and  search  (for  such  we  have  shown  it  to 
be)  may  be  exercised  under  the  British  claim  The 
first  cIp.ss  is  that  cf  Brituh  vessels  eng?iged  in  an 
unlawful  traffic,  and  seeking  to  screen  their  offence 
under  the  American  flag.  The  second  consists  of 
vessels  belonging  to  other  states,  which  have  by  treaty 
conceded  to  Great  Britain  the  right  of  visitation 
and  search,  and  which  right  is  attempted  to  be  de- 
feated by  fraudulently  bearing  the  protecting  flag 
of  the  United  States.  The  third  comprises  piratical 
outlaws,  possessing  no  rightful  claim  to  any  flag  or 
national  character  whatsoever. 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs 
asserts  that  none  of  these  classes  of  vessels  have 
any  title  to  be  exempted  from  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  visitation  and  search  claimed  by  Great 
Britain.  He  adds,  that  if  the  visitation  by  a 
British  cruiser  "should  lead  to  the  proof  of  the 
American  origin  of  the  vessel,  and  that  she  was 
avowedly  engaged  in  the  slave-trade,  exhibiting  to 
view  the  manacles,  fetters,  and  other  usual  imple- 
ments of  torture,  or  had  even  a  number  of  these 
unfortunate  beings  on  board,  no  British  officer 
could  interfere  any  farther."  That  is  to  say,  if  the 
vessel  in  question  turns  out,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
British  boarding  officer,  to  be  bona  fide  American, 
she  must  be  released,  although  the  proof  be  ever  so 
clear  that  she  was  actually  engaged  in  the  slave-trade. 

But,  we  would  respectfully  ask,  what  if  she 
proves,  in  the  judgment  of  the  boarding  officer,  re- 


% 


m 


M 


I 


ri 


134 


suiting  from  an  examination  of  her  papers  and  other 
proofs,  to  fall  within  one  of  the  above-described 
classes  of  vessels — that  is  to  say,  to  be  a  British  ves- 
sel disguised  under  the  mask  of  the  American  flag 
and  papers;  or  to  belong  to  some  one  of  the  States 
v<rhich  have,  by  treaty,  conceded  to  Great  Britain 
the  right  of  visitation  and  search ;  or,  finally,  to  be 
what  Lord  Aberdeen  calls  a.  piratical  outlaw?  What 
farther  proceedings  are  to  be  had  in  either  or  all  of 
these  cases?  There  can,  we  conceive,  be  but  one 
answer  to  this  question — namely,  that  the  vessel, 
thus  visited  and  searched,  must  be  carried  into  some 
port  of  some  country,  for  trial  before  some  court  of 
justice.  As  before  observed,  the  visitation  would 
be  a  worse  than  idle  ceremony,  unless  followed  by 
search,  and  the  search  a  wanton  outrage  unless  the 
vessel  were  to  be  carried  in  for  adjudication,  in  case 
she  turned  out,  in  the  judgment  of  the  boarding 
officer,  not  to  be  American,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  fall  within  some  one  of  the  categories  above 
enumerated.  Now,  this  is  precisely  what  happens 
in  the  exercise  of  the  belligerent  right  of  visitation 
and  search,  in  time  of  war.  If  a  vessel  sailing  un- 
der the  neutral  flag  is  boarded  and  examined  by  a 
belligerent  armed  and  commisdoned  cruiser,  and 
the  result  of  the  examination  establishes  her  neu- 
trality in  the  judgment  of  the  boarding  officer,  or  his 
superior  commander,  she  is  of  course  released,  and 
suflered  to  pursue  her  voyage.  But  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  iheiv prima  facie  judgment  be,  that  the  ship 
or  cargo  is  in  reality  enemy's  property,  or  that  the 


135 


le 


latter  is  contraband  of  war,  or  that  the  proprietor 
or  master  have  been  guilty  of  some  unneutral  act, 
by  which  the  property  is  rendered  liable  to  confis- 
cation, the  vessel  is,  of  course,  detained,  and  sent  in 
for  trial  in  the  competent  Prize  Court  of  the  cap- 
tor's country.  The  identity  of  the  right,  now  for 
the  first  time  claimed  by  Great  Britain,  with  the 
belligerent  right  of  visitation  and  search,  which 
Lord  Stowell  asserts,  and  Lord  Aberdeen  admits, 
cannot  exist  in  time  of  peace,  thus  becomes  more 
and  more  evident  at  every  step  we  advance  in  the 
progress  of  our  investigation. 

We  repeat,  if  the  seizure  had  been  made  in  time 
of  war,  the  captured  vessel  must  be  carried  into 
port  for  adjudication  before  the  competent  Prize 
Court  of  the  captor's  country.  But  it  being  made 
in  time  of  peace,  the  captured  vessel,  if  belonging  to 
the  first  of  the  classes  above  mentioned,  and  seized 
and  proceeded  against  as  a  British  vessel  engaged 
in  violating  the  municipal  laws  of  Great  Britain, 
must  necessarily  be  tried  before  the  Court  of  her 
own  supposed  country.  But  what  if  she  proves,  on 
trial,  to  be  an  American,  though  guilty  of  slave- 
trading? — and  what,  if  she  turns  out  to  be  both 
American,  and  innocent  of  all  offence  ?  If  there 
should  have  been,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court  by 
which  the  vessel  is  tried,  such  reasonable  grounds 
of  suspicion  as  constitute  probable  cause  of  seizure, 
the  owners  would  not,  according  to  the  usual  course 
of  the  Admiralty,  even  be  entitled  to  costs  and 
damages  for  the  detention,  which,  in  most  cases. 


m 


t 


fi  !i 


ii  h 


i'  i 


^l|- 


^i 


136 

must  be  attended  with  the  loss  of  the  voyage.  The 
discretion  of  that  Court  is  exercised  in  giving  or  re- 
fusing costs  and  damages,  in  cases  of  marine  torts, 
with  such  arbitrary  latitude,  and  is  formed  by  such 
merely  equitable,  and  even  politic  considerations, 
that  it  would  be  a  very  unsafe  reliance  for  a  foreign 
claimant  to  look  to  for  adequate  indemnity  in  case 
of  wrongful  seizure.  In  short,  it  would  be  easy  to 
show  the  multiplied  embarrassments  that  must  in- 
evitably arise  from  this  anomalous  attempt  to  exe- 
cute the  law;:  . ''  ^^  particular  state  beyond  its  own 
territorial  jurisu ,  on  on  the  high  seas,  in  time  of 
peace,  upon  vessels  suspected  to  be  its  own,  and  to 
have  fradulently  assumed  the  flag  and  papers  of 
another  nation.  In  time  of  war,  such  vessels  may 
be  seized  and  proceeded  against  in  the  exercise  of  a 
right  incident  to  that  of  belligerent  capture.  Being 
once  brought  before  the  Prize  Court,  such  vessels 
might  be  condemned  on  the  ground  that  a  British 
subject  has  no  persona  standi  injudicio  to  claim  pro- 
perty taken  in  the  act  of  violating  the  municipal 
laws  of  his  own  country,  whilst  the  claim  of  the 
American  citizen  would  be  at  once  rejected  as 
founded  in  fraud  and  supported  by  falsehood.  It  is 
plain  that  the  condemnation  in  the  Court  of  Admi- 
ralty cannot  proceed  upon  such  grounds  in  time  of 
peace.  Doubtless,  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation 
of  any  particular  country  may  be  executed  by  the 
seizure  of  the  vessels  proved  to  belong  to  that  coun- 
try, in  a  place  which  is  not  within  the  territory  of  a 
particular  state,  such  as  the  high  seas.    But  such 


137 


seizure  must  necessarily  be  made  at  the  hazard  of 
mistaking  the  property  of  the  citizens  of  another  na- 
tion for  that  of  the  subjects  of  the  state  under  whose 
authority  the  seizure  is  made.  The  right,  then, 
claimed  by  Great  Britain,  so  far  as  respects  the  first 
class  of  cases  enumerated  by  Lord  Aberdeen,  comes 
to  this : — that  it  is  a  right  to  seize  at  the  peril  of  the 
captors,  subject  to  full  compensation  in  costs  and 
damages,  in  case  the  property  turns  out  to  be  Ame- 
rican as  claimed,  and  there  be  not  such  reasonable 
grounds  of  suspicion  as  constitutes  what  is  techni- 
cally called  ^roW/g  caw."  of  seizure.  There  being 
no  treaty  and  no  public  law  applicable  to  the  case, 
against  whom  can  the  costs  and  damages  be  decreed 
by  which  the  injured  party  is  to  be  indemnified  ? 
Who  is  to  pay  them,  the  captor  or  his  Government  ? 
Under  the  special  contracts  entered  into  between 
Great  Britain  and  other  powers,  the  jurisdiction  to 
try  is  conferred  upon  the  tribunal  of  that  nation  to 
whom  the  vessel  appears,  prima  facie,  by  the  flag 
under  which  she  sails,  and  by  the  flag  alone,  to  be- 
long ;  and  the  costs  and  damages  which  may  be  al- 
lowed by  such  tribunals,  in  case  of  wrongful  seizure, 
are  to  be  paid  by  the  Government  of  the  captor.* 
The  neglect  of  the  British  Government  to  provide 
an  adequate  indemnification  for  the  losses  and  in- 
juries already  sustpined  in  the  various  cases  of 
seizure  of  American  vessels  in  the  African  seas, 


I 
I 


*  Convention  of  the  22nd  March.  1833,  between  France  and 
Great  Britain,  Articles  1 — 7.    (Martens'  "  Nouveau  Receuil," 
torn.  ix.  pp.  550 — 553.) 
18 


'!    I 


I    II: 


'  li' 


I 


:r 


138 

affords  but  little  encouragement  for  the  United 
States  to  acquiesce  in  the  pretension  of  another  na- 
tion to  determine  for  them,  without  their  special  con- 
sent, the  national  character  and  proprietary  interest 
of  vessels  navigating  the  high  seas  in  time  of  peace 
under  their  flag  and  papers. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  seizure  be  of  a  vessel 
appertaining  to  the  second  class,  that  of  vessels  sup- 
posed to  belong  to  States  which  have,  by  treaty, 
conceded  to  Great  Britain  the  right  of  visitation  and 
search,  the  trial  must  be  had  before  the  court  of  the 
country  to  which  the  vessel  is  supposed  to  belong, 
or  before  a  Mixed  Commission,  as  the  one  or  the 
other  tribunal  may  have  been  provided  by  the  com- 
pact. But  how  can  either  of  these  tribunals  acquire 
jurisdiction  over  the  vessels  of  a  nation  which  is  no 
party  to  the  treaty  ?  In  one  of  the  cases  mentioned 
in  Mr.  Stevenson's  correspondence,  that  of  the  Jago^ 
sailing  under  the  American  flag  and  papers,  the  ves- 
sel was  sent  into  the  British  port  of  Sierra  Leone 
for  trial  before  the  British  and  Spanish  mixed  com- 
mission at  that  place,  which  very  properly  refused 
to  take  jurisdiction  of  the  case.  But  suppose  a  ves- 
sel, suspected  to  have  fraudulently  assumed  the 
American  flag  and  papers,  to  be  sent  in  for  adjudi- 
cation before  the  Court  of  the  country  to  which  she 
is  believed  in  fact  to  belong,  under  the  Treaties  of 
1831  and  1833,  between  Great  Britain  and  France, 
or  under  the  quintuple  treaty  of  the  20th  December 
last ;  and  suppose  she  proves,  on  trial,  to  be  bona 
fide  American,  against  whom  are  the  costs  and  da- 


139 


mages  to  be  decreed,  supposing  the  seizure  not  to  be 
justified  on  the  ground  of  probable  cause?  Not 
against  the  British  captor,  for  the  Court  has  no  ju- 
risdiction over  him,  except  in  the  case  of  seizure  of 
a  vessel  belonging  to  the  nations  who  are  parties  to 
the  treaties — not  against  his  Government,  for  the 
Unite  I  States  are  no  parties  to  the  treaties;  and  one 
of  their  citizens  can  claim  no  rights  under  the  trea- 
ties. 

It  thus  appears  that,  in  the  cases  supposed  of  an 
attempt  to  execute  the  treaties  against  the  vessels 
of  a  nation,  which  is  no  party  to  the  compact,  that 
such  nation  is  placed  in  a  much  worse  situation 
than  if  it  had  actually  acceded  to  its  stipulations. 
Instead  of  remaining  under  the  tutelary  protection 
of  the  pre-existing  law  of  nations,  which  exempts 
its  vessels  on  the  high  seas  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
every  other  nation,  and  from  all  search  and  deten- 
tion in  time  of  peace,  it  is  involuntarily  exposed  to 
the  exercise  of  the  right  of  search,  in  the  same 
manner,  and  to  the  same  extent,  with  those  States 
who  have  conceded  the  right  by  treaty ;  and  that, 
without  those  securities  against  the  but  too  pro- 
bable abuse  of  the  rights  which  are  provided  by  the 
compact  to  which  it  is  no  party.  The  British 
claim,  then,  is,  in  eifect,  a  claim  to  do  that  inde- 
pendent of  the  compact,  towards  those  who  are  no 
parties  to  the  compact,  which  the  compact,  for  the 
first  time,  authorized  to  be  done  towards  any  inde- 
pendent nation  whatsoever.  To  justify  such  preten- 
sion, no  arguments  drawn  from  mere  considerations 


•t 


Kl 


i 


140 


h  ; 


I 


of  convenience,  expediency,  or  even  necessity,  can 
avail  to  supply  the  intrinsic  legal  defects  of  the  pre- 
tension itself.  Even  if  it  were  ever  so  clearly 
proved,  that  the  African  slave-trade  could  be  effect- 
ually suppressed  by  the  concession  of  the  right  of 
search  on  the  part  of  all  nations ;  which  is  so  far 
from  being  proved,  that  the  direct  contrary  is  con- 
clusively demonstrated  by  fact  and  experience,  ac- 
cording to  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished enemies  of  the  traffic,  it  would  not  follow 
that  even  so  great  a  good  can  lawfully  be  accom- 
plished, by  acting  towards  any  one  nation,  even  the 
smallest  and  the  weakest,  as  if  it  had  freely  made 
the  concession.  Considerations  of  higher  conve- 
nience, expediency,  and  necessity,  connected  with 
settled  views,  of  policy  as  to  national  honour,  and 
rights  and  interests,  stand  in  the  way,  in  the  opinion 
of  at  least  one  great  maritime  nation,  of  its  accomplish- 
ment by  the  means  proposed.  The  words  of  Lord 
Stowell  before  quoted,  here  apply  with  all  their 
force  of  energetic  expression  and  intrinsic  wisdom : 
"  No  nation  has  a  right  to  force  its  way  to  the 
liberation  of  Africa,  by  trampling  on  the  indepen- 
dence of  other  States;  or  to  procure  an  eminent 
good  by  means  that  are  unlawful ;  or  to  press  for- 
ward to  a  great  principle,  by  breaking  through  other 
great  principles  that  stand  in  the  way." 

We  do  not  say  that  the  matter  in  controversy  is 
not  a  proper  subject  of  international  legislation  to 
be  undertaken  at  some  auspicious  moment ;  but  we 
do  say,  so  far  as  the  United  States  are  concerned, 


141 


that  the  negotiation,  which  must  precede  the  intro- 
duction of  a  new  public  law  of  Europe  and  America 
for  the  regulation  of  this  matter,  cannot  be  under- 
taken on  the  basis  of  the  previous  admission  of  the 
claim  now  set  up  by  Great  Britain,  under  the  pre- 
existing law  of  nations.  Such  an  admission  would 
have  been  peremptorily  and  unanimously  rejected 
by  the  Powers,  who,  after  long  hesitation  and  re- 
peated refusals,  have  at  last  concurred  in  making 
the  mutual  concession  of  the  right  of  search,  under 
certain  qualifications,  the  ground-work  of  a  more 
comprehensive  compact  on  this  important  question. 
This  compact  is  not  yet  consummated,  between  the 
European  Powers  who  are  parties  to  it,  by  that 
final  sanction,  which  is  necessary  to  make  it  obli- 
gatory, even  among  them.  The  signature  of  the 
quintuple  treaty  of  the  20th  December  last,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  anticipated  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  in  his  message  to  Congress,  of 
the  7th  of  that  month.*  The  President,  at  the 
same  time,  anticipated  the  answer,  which  the  Cabi- 
net of  Washington  cannot  fail  to  give  to  all  the 
arguments  which  may  be  advanced  from  the  Bri- 

*  "  Whether  this  Government  should  now  enter  into  treaties 
containing  mutual  stipulations  upon  this  subject,  is  a  question  for 
its  mature  deliberation.  Certain  it  is,  that  if  the  right  to  detain 
American  ships  on  the  high  seas  can  be  justified  on  the  plea  of  a 
necessity  for  such  detention,  arising  out  of  the  existence  of  trea- 
ties between  other  nations  ;  the  same  plea  may  be  extended  and 
enlarged  by  new  stipulations  of  new  treaties,  to  which  the  United 
States  may  not  be  parties." 


Ill 
511 


il 


142 


tish  Foreign  office,  as  to  the  supposed  necessity  of 
exerting  the  right  claimed  by  Great  Britain,  under 
the  pre-existing  law  of  nations,  in  order  to  give 
more  complete  effect  to  the  treaties  already  entered 
into,  or  which  may  be  entered  into  between  her  and 
other  European  States,  to  which  treaties  the  United 
States,  are  and  may  long  remain  utter  strangers. 

As  to  the  third  class  of  vessels  supposed  by  Lord 
Aberdeen  to  be  justly  liable  to  visitation  and  search 
on  the  high  seas  in  time  of  peace,  that  of  "  piratical 
outlaws  possessing  no  claim  to  any  flag  or  nation- 
ality whatever,"  we  would  merely  observe  that,  if 
by  the  term  piratical  outlaws  be  meant  those  who 
are  guilty  of  piracy  under  the  law  of  nations,  the 
judgment  of  that  enlightened  tribunal,  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  the  Mari- 
anna  Flora,  above  quoted  is  amply  sufficient  to  dis- 
pose of  that  class  of  cases,  and  to  show  that  the  pira- 
tical character  of  vessels  navigating  the  ocean  must 
be  ascertained  by  means  other  than  the  exercise  of 
the  ordinary  right  of  visitation  and  search.  In  fact, 
the  character  of  pirates,  properly  so  called,  is  sel- 
dom difficult  to  be  determined.  These  enemies  of 
the  human  race  do  not  wait  to  be  visited,  but  either 
fly  from  pursuit,  or  commence  a  piratical  aggres- 
sion against  those  who  would  approach  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  their  real  character.  The  pre- 
sent maritime  police  is  amply  sufficient  to  protect 
the  peaceful  navigator  against  sea-roveis;  and  there 
is,  in  truth,  no  more  reason  for  admitting  the  exer- 
cise of  a  general  right  of  visitation  and  search,  in 


\i'.\ 


order  to  discover,  arrest,  and  punish  pirates,  than 
there  is  to  require  all  travellers  to  be  examined  and 
searched ;  because  there  are  occasionally  some  high- 
way robberies  committed  in  every  civilized  country. 
The  offence  of  piracy  is  in  fact,  at  present,  extremely 
rare  on  every  sea :  and  the  United  States  have  found 
no  difficulty  in  effectually  putting  it  down  in  the 
American  seas,  without  asserting  an  indiscriminate 
right  of  search ;  they  do  not  claim  it  for  themselves, 
for  any  purpose,  and  they  will  not  acknowledge  it 
in  others. 

But  if  by  "  piratical  outlaws  "  be  meant  persons 
engaged  in  the  slave-trade,  which,  though  formerly 
tolerated,  and  even  encouraged  by  every  nation,  is 
now  forbidden  by  the  municipal  laws  of  all  civilized 
and  Christian  countries,  and  is  declared  to  be  pi- 
racy, and  as  such  visited  with  capital  punishment 
by  the  laws  of  some  States ;  we  would  remark,  that 
it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  the  offence  of  trading 
in  slaves  is  deemed  piracy  und^t  the  law  of  nations, 
and  as  such  punishable  in  the  Courts  of  any  coun- 
try into  which  the  offenders  may  be  brought.    The 
attempt  to  introduce  a  new  public  law,  making  the 
offence  piracy,  under  the  law  of  nations,  failed  at  the 
Congress  of  Verona ;  it  failed  in  the  negotiations  of 
1823-4,  between  the  American  and  British  govern- 
ments, although  the  former  was  extremely  anxious 
to  make  it  the  basis  of  a  general  concert  among  the 
the  States  of  Europe  and  America;  it  failed  in  the 
more  recent  negotiations  between  the  five  great 
European  Powers,  which  finally  resulted  in  the 


i 

i: 


>; 


M 


1 


144 


» ' 


r 


treaty  of  the  20th  December  last.  It  is,  therefore, 
a  looseness  of  language,  fatal  to  all  accurate  reason- 
ing, to  call  slave-traders  "piratical  outlaws,"  and  to 
assert  that,  for  the  sake  of  discovering  and  punish- 
ing these  persons  as  offenders  against  the  law  of 
nations,  a  general  right  of  search  is  to  be  assumed  in 
time  of  peace,  as  if  cruising  against  slave-traders 
were  to  be  put  on  the  same  footing  with  public  war 
between  sovereign  communities. 

It  is  quite  clear  that  such  a  right  can  never  be 
established  but  by  the  voluntary  consent  of  all  civi- 
lized States.  The  equality  of  nations  in  the  eye  of 
that  public  law  by  which  the  great  community  of 
Christendom  is  held  together,  forbids  the  idea  of 
any,  even  the  smallest  and  weakest  State,  being  co- 
erced to  "onsent  to  the  establishment  of  a  new  rule 
of  international  conduct.  The  supposition  that  the 
five  Great  Powers  of  Europe  intendv^d,  in  their  re- 
cently-projected compact,  conceding  the  mutual 
right  of  search,  to  bring  to  bear  upon  America  the 
moral  weight  of  this  Holy  AUiance  against  the  traf- 
fic in  human  beings,  in  order  to  compel  her  to  sa- 
crifice her  maritime  rights  to  this  object,  is,  there- 
fore, wholly  gratuitous  and  inadmissible ;  and  if 
there  be  any  of  the  intended  contracting  parties  who 
had  such  a  design  in  view  in  procuring  the  assent 
of  others  to  the  proposed  compact,  they  are  proba- 
bly, by  this  time,  convinced  that  the  attempt  will 
be  vain.  The  United  States  adopted  the  Euro- 
pean law  of  nations  when  they  separated  from  the 
British  empire.    But  it  was  the  internal  law  of  £u- 


145 

rope,  as  it  stood  on  the  footing  of  immemorial  usage 
and  approved  practice,  and  recognised  by  public 
jurists  of  authority,  at  the  time  when  the  United 
States  declared  their  independence  of  Great  Britain. 
To  borrow  the  language  of  the  President's  message 
already  referred  to : — 

*'  however  desirous  the  United  States  may  be  for  the  suppres* 
sion  of  the  slave-trade,  they  cannot  consent  to  interpolations  in  the 
maritime  code  at  the  mere  will  and  pleasure  of  other  governments. 
We  deny  the  right  of  any  such  interpolation  to  any  one,  or  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  without  our  consent.  We  claim  to  have  a 
voice  in  all  amenc^ments  or  alterations  of  that  code ;  and  when  we 
are  given  to  understand,  as  in  this  instance,  by  a  foreign  govern- 
ment, that  its  treaties  with  other  nations  cann<  i  be  executed  with- 
out the  establishment  and  enforcement  of  new  principles  of  mari- 
time police,  to  be  employed  without  our  consent,  we  must  employ 
a  language  neither  of  equivocal  import,  nor  susceptiMe  of  miscon- 
struction. American  citizens  prosecuting  a  lawful  commerce  in 
the  African  seas,  under  the  flag  of  their  country,  are  not  responsi- 
ble for  the  abuse  or  unlawful  use  of  that  flag  by  others ;  nor  can 
they  rightfully,  on  account  of  any  such  alleged  abuses,  be  inter- 
rupted or  detained  on  the  ocean ;  and  if  thus  molested  or  detained, 
whilst  pursuing  honest  voyages,  in  the  usual  way,  and  violating  no 
law  themselves,  they  are  unquestionably  entitled  to  indemnity." 


Though  the  United  States  do  not  consider  them- 
selves bound  by  innovations,  made,  or  attempted  to 
be  made,  without  their  consent,  m  the  maritime  law 
of  nations,  since  they  became  an  independent  power* 
they  do  not  the  less  desire  to  see  substantial  improve- 
19 


fi    !i 


m. 


146 


ments  effected  in  that  code  by  the  general  assent  of 
all  civilized  states.  Pacific  and  commercial  from 
inclination  and  habit,  the  American  people  wish  to 
see  the  same  rules  applied  to  hostilities  by  sea  which 
have  so  long  contributed  to  mitigate  the  ferocity  of 
war  by  land.  For  this  purpose  they  have  ever 
sought,  in  their  treaties  of  navigation  and  com- 
merce with  other  nations,  to  abolish  the  usage  of 
seizing  and  confiscating  enemy's  property  in  the 
ships  of  a  friend-^that  relic  of  a  barbarous  age, 
when  maritime  warfare  was  identified  with  piracy, 
by  the  ferocious  manner  in  which  it  was  carried  on ; 
and  by  which  usage  the  peaceful  intercourse  of 
commercial  nations  with  those  who  continue  to  be 
their  friends,  though  involved  in  war  with  others,  is 
still  interrupted,  in  the  midst  of  the  general  efforts 
of  a  more  enlightened  period  to  adopt  a  milder  sys- 
tem of  international  relations.  Influenced  by  these 
considerations,  the  United  States,  in  the  first  com- 
mercial treaty  they  formed  with  any  foreign  powei-, 
that  with  France,  of  the  6th  February,  1778,  re- 
cognised the  principle  of  free  navigation  in  time 
of  war,  b}-  adopting  the  maxim— ^ec  ship}>,  free 
goods;  which  had  becii  incorporated  into  the  con- 
ventional law  ot  Europe,  ever  since  the  Peace  of 
Utrecht,  1713,  though  seldom  or  never  observed  in 
practice  towards  neutrals  by  any  of  its  maritime 
states,  when  actually  engaged  in  hostilities  with 
each  other.  France,  soon  after,  became  involved 
in  the  war  between  Great  Britain  and  her  revolted 
colonies ;  and  the  French  government  issued,  on 


147 


the  26th  July,  1778,  an  ordinance  extending  the 
stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  the  6th  February  to  all 
neutral  states.  The  cause  of  American  inde- 
pendence, and  of  the  free  navigation  of  the  seas, 
thus  became  blended  together,  and  was  supported 
by  the  joint  efforts  of  France,  Holland,  and  Spain, 
sustaining  the  late  British  colonies  in  their  struggle 
for  emancipation.  The  armed  neutrality  of  1780 
was  formed  by  the  neutral  powers  of  the  Baltic  for 
the  purpose  of  more  accurately  defining  the  rights 
of  free  navigation,  and  its  principles  were  acknow- 
ledged by  all  the  maritime  states  of  Europe.  The 
American  congress  recognised  these  principles  by 
its  ordinance  of  1781,  for  the  direction  of  the  Ame- 
rican cruisers  and  courts  of  prize.  The  war  of  the 
American  Revolution  was  at  last  terminated  by  the 
treaty  of  peace  signed  at  Versailles  in  1783,  by 
which  the  independence  of  the  United  States  was 
acknowledged  by  Great  Britain,  and  the  treaties  of 
Utrecht,  by  which  the  freedom  of  neutral  naviga- 
tion was  stipulated,  were  renewed  and  confirmed 
between  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Spain.  In 
1785,  the  United  States  concluded  a  treaty  of  com- 
merce and  navigation  with  Prussia,  in  which  not 
only  the  same  liberal  principles  of  the  maritime  law 
of  nations  were  recognised,  but  other  stipulations 
intended  to  mitigate  the  evils  of  war  by  land  and 
by  sea,  were  inserted  by  the  American  negotiator, 
Franklin,  who  carried  into  diplomacy  the  enlight- 
ened spirit  of  the  philosopher  and  philanthropist. 
On  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  of  the  French  Re- 


ill  , 


148 


i 


111 


ii' 


I  1 1  '  ■ 
■    '»]: 

[)  <  I ' 
r  '  ■  ■ 
I 


volution  in  1792-3,  in  which  nearly  all  the  powers 
of  Europe  became  involved,  the  United  States  sought 
in  vain  to  preserve  those  privileges  of  neutral  com- 
merce and  navigation  which  had  been  guaranteed 
by  so:dmn  treaties  with  the  maritime  states  of  the 
European  continent.  Great  Britain  would  not  ac- 
knowledge them  in  theory  or  in  practice ;  and  those 
very  powers  which  stipulated  to  respect  them,  re- 
membered to  forget  their  own  professions  and  pro- 
mises, in  their  anxiety  to  crush  a  dangerous  and 
formidable  enemy,  who  <' attempted  to  propagate 
first  her  principles,  and  afterwards  her  dominion, 
by  the  sword."*  Hence  the  mutual  interdictions  of 
neutral  trade  with  each  other,  in  corn  and  provi- 
sions, published  by  the  different  belligerent  powers ; 
hence  the  revival  by  Great  Britain  of  the  rule  of  the 
war  of  1756,  interdicting  all  neutral  commerce  with 
the  colonies  of  an  enemy ;  hence  that  foul  brood  of 
paper-blockades,  and  orders  in  council,  and  imperial 
decrees,  by  which  European  warfare  was  brought 
back  again  to  the  barbarous  practices  of  the  darkest 
age,  and  by  which  series  of  innovations  and  inter- 
polations into  the  public  code  of  nations,  all  neutral 
commerce  was  ultimately  prohibited,  and  America, 
the  only  remaining  neutral  nation,  was  herself  re- 
luctantly compelled  to  take  part  in  the  war.  During 
all  this  period,  the  right  of  visitation  and  search  con- 


*  Mr.  Canning's  despatch  to  Sir  C.  Stuart,  28th  January, 
1823.  (British  Annual  Register,  Vol.  LXV.  Public  Documents, 
p.  W.) 


^,;il 


1^ 


149 

tinued  to  be  asserted  by  Great  Britain,  not  only  for 
its  original  purpose  of  seizing  enemy's  property  on 
board  neutral  vessels,  and  for  executing  these  bar- 
barous edicts,  but,  in  the  case  of  the  United  States, 
by  impressing  from  under  their  flag  those  seamen 
whom  the  British  officers,  in  the  exercise  of  an 
arbitrary  discretion,  chose  to  denominate  British 
subjects.  Had  the  practice  of  impressment,  thus 
exercised  as  an  incident  to  tho  belligerent  right  of 
visitation  and  search,  been  in  fact  applied  to  British 
seamen  only,  the  American  Government  might 
have  longer  forborne  to  resist  the  application  of  a 
principle  against  which  it  had  never  ceased  to  pro- 
test. But  when  to  the  other  violations  of  its  mari- 
time rights,  was  superadded  the  application  of  the 
right  of  search  to  the  impressment  of  American 
citizens,  thousands  of  whom  were  detained  and 
compelled  to  fight  the  battles  of  Great  Britain 
against  nations  witli  whom  their  own  country  was 
at  peace,  the  American  Government  could  no 
longer  hesitate  to  draw  the  sword  order  to  vin- 
dicate the  honour  of  its  national  flag.  Henco  its 
invincible  repugnance  to  recognise  by  express  com- 
pacts, to  any  extent  or  for  any  purpose,  a  right, 
which,  whether  applied  to  merchandise  or  men, 
is  so  capable  of  being  abused  by  a  gigantic  naval 
power.  It  is  one  thing  to  admit  the  right  of  visita- 
tion and  search,  as  applied  in  time  of  war  for  its 
original,  legitimate  objects,  recognised  by  usage  and 
by  the  positive,  if  not  by  the  natural  law  of  nations ; 
and  it  is  another  and  very  different  thing,  to  consent 


I. 


I; 


1'^^ 


w 


i 


m 


■i' 


\)i 


U  ij 


("i^ 


J:  .r 


^;v 


I 


150 

to  extend  that  right  to  a  state  of  peace,  and  to  ob- 
jects foreign  to  those  for  which  it  was  originally 
established.  The  United  States  have  never  pre- 
tended that  Great  Britain  could  lawfully  be  com- 
pelled by  force  to  abandon  the  belligerent  right  of 
visitation  and  search,  however  anxious  they  may 
have  been  to  establish  by  general  compact  the 
maxim,  of  free  ships,  free  goods,  by  which  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  right  would  be  limited  to  the  sole  cases 
of  contraband  and  blockade  only.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  the  United  States 
may  be  compelled  by  force  or  by  that  moral  duress 
which  is  equivalent  to  the  application  of  force,  to 
abandon  the  immunity  of  their  flag  from  the  ex- 
ercise of  that  right  in  time  of  peace.  Their  conclu- 
sive objection  to  its  extension  by  special  compact, 
in  peace  or  in  war,  in  any  form,  and  under  any 
restrictions,  which  have  heretofore  been  proposed, 
is  not  merely  that  it  may  be  liable  to  abuse,  as  ex- 
perience has  but  too  well  proved ;  but  that  such  ex- 
press recognition  might  involve  by  implication  the 
establishment  of  maxims  relating  to  neutral  naviga- 
tion, the  reverse  of  those  which  they  have  ever 
sought  to  incorporate  into  the  international  code  by 
the  general  concurrence  of  maritime  states.  "  The 
encroaching  character  of  the  right,  founded  in  its 
original  nature  as  an  irresponsible  exercise  of  force," 
with  its  tendency  to  grow  and  gather  strength  by 
exercise,  render  it  the  more  necessary,  in  their 
opinion,  to  be  cautious  in  furnishing  fresh  prece- 
dents of  its  extension  to  new  objects,  and  to  a  larger 


151 

sphere  of  operation.  It  was,  therefore,  with  great 
satisfaction,  that  we  recently  heard  the  assurance 
solemnly  given  from  the  legislative  tribune,  by  the 
constitutional  organ  of  the  French  Government,  in 
respect  to  foreign  relations,  that  "  the  United  States 
were  free,  and  would  remain  free,"  in  regard  to  this 
matter.  That  is  to  say,  as  we  understood  the  de- 
claration, that  th**  liberty  of  action  of  the  American 
Government  remains  entire;  that  it  will  neither  be 
constrained  to  accede  to  the  treaties  concluded,  or  to 
be  concluded  between  the  European  powers  for 
the  mutual  concession  of  the  right  of  visitation  and 
search,  nor  compelled  by  any  of  the  contracting 
parties  to  submit  to  the  exercise  of  that  right  as  a 
measure  deemed  indispens^Me  to  the  effectual  ac- 
complishment of  the  object  of  those  treaties.* 

*  "  Messieurs,  les  Etats-Unis  sont  libres,  ils  resteront  libres." 
(M.  Guizot's  Speech  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  January 
24th,  1842.) 


iff 


r 


i\ 


]V:\ 


LEA    8l    BLANCHARD, 

PHILADELPHIA, 

HAVE  RECENTLY  PUBLISHED 

THE  LETTERS  OF  HORACE  WALPOLE, 

EARL    OF    ORFORD. 

IN  FOUR 'VOLUMES,  OCTAVO,  HAND80MBLY  BOUND,  CONTAINING  NEARLY 


MOW  FIRST  PUBLISHED  FROM  THE   0RI0INAL8,   FORMINO   AN  UNINTERRUPTED 

SERIES,  > 

VROJK  THIS  TBAR  1739  TO  1707. 


/ 


rCWTAININO 


HIS   LETTERS   TO 


GEORGE  MONTAGU,  ESQ.— SIR  HORACE  MANN— RICHARD  WEST,  ESQ. 
—LADY  CRAVEN— GRAY  (the  pokt)— HON.  H.  SEYMOUR  CONWAY— 
JOHN  CHUTE,  ESQ.— SIR  DAVID  DALRYMPLE— REV.  WILLIAM  MASON 
—LADY  HERVEY— THE  EARL  OP  HERTFORD— RICHARD  BENTLEY, 
ESQ.— EARL  OP  STRAPFORD— MRS.  HANNAH  MORE— DAVID  HUME, 
ESQ.— COUNTESS  OP  AILESBURY  —  CAPTAIN  JEPHSON  —  GEORGE 
COLMAN— MR.  PINKERTON— THE  MISS  BERRY8,  &c  &c. 


NUMEROUS 


INCLUDING 

UNPUBLISHED 


LETTERS. 

Nowfini  eolleeUd  and  ehronohgieally  arranged.  In  this  edition  the  names  formerly 
only  indicated  by  initiab  are  inserted  at  full  hngth.  The  wlutle  with  Notes,  illus- 
trative and  explanatory,  from  MSS.  and  other  sources.    To  which  are  added  his 

REMINISCENCES; 

FORMING,  WITH  THE  LETTERS, 

AN  ANECDOTICAL  HISTORY  OF  A  GREAT  PART  OF  THE 

LAST  CENTURY. 

*«*  By  an  arrangement  with  the  former  publishers  of  Walpole's  Letters  to  George 
Montagu,  Esq.  these  Letters  are  also  included  in  the  present  only  complete  edition  of 
the  Letters  of  the  Earl  of  Okford. 

In  former  publications  of  Horace  Walpole's  Letters,  the  effect  of  these  letters  are 

freatly  marred  by  the  suppression  of  names,  or  by  the  obscure  indication^  of  them 
y  initials  only.  Nearly  naif  a  century  has,  however,  now  elapsed  since  he  lived; 
and  when  it  is  considered  that  he  survived  almost  all  of  whom  he  wrote,  it  is  clear 
that  the  delicacy  which  rendered  this  obscurity  necessary  on  the  first  publication  df 
his  Letters,  exists  no  longer.  In  the  present  edition,  therefore,  taese  provoking 
blanks  are  filled  up;  for  which  purpose  the  proprietor  possesses  advantages  not  at 
the  command  of  any  other.  To  enhance  the  value  of  the  collection,  a  considerable 
number  of  Letters  hitherto  existing  only  in  MS.  are  added,  and  the  whole  are  now, 
for  the  first  time,  chronologically  arranged  and  illustrated  by  anecdolical  and  bio- 
graphical Notes,  from  manuscript  and  other  sources. 

The  most  highly-valued  contributor  to  the  present  complete  collection  of  the  epis- 
tolary writings  of  the  Earl  of  Orford,  is  his  lordship's  latest  correspondent,  one  of 
the  ladies  to  whom  he  addressed  his  "  Reminiscences  of  the  Court  of  George  II."  . 
To  this  lady  the  world  will  be  indebted,  not  only  for  a  series  of  Letters  which  have 
never  seen  the  light,  but  for  a  variety  of  illustrative  and  interesting  Notes,  which 
she  alone  could  supply.  To  these  are  added  a  curious  commentary  on  the  "  Remi- 
niscences," suppliea  by  the  Letters  of  Sarah,  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  and  now  first 
published. 

OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

"  Horace  Walpole  may  decidedly  claim  pre-eminence  for  ease  and  liveliness  of 
expression,  terseness  of  remark,  and  felicity  of  narration  above  almost  all  the  epis- 


jnrr 


\ 


R       i 


1  :■ 

I 
If 

! 

,1 
1 

'i 

■1    ' 

1: 

1 

( 

tolary  writers  of  Britain.  His  'Reminiscences  of  the  Reigns  of  George  I  and  II,' 
make  us  better  acquainted  with  the  manners  of  those  princes  and  the  courts,  thnn 
we  should  be  aAer  perusing  a  hundred  heavy  historians;  and  futurity  will  long  be 
indebted  to  the  chance  which  threw  into  his  vicinity,  when  age  rendered  him  com- 
municative, the  accomplished  ladies  to  whom  these  anecdotes  were  commnnicated. 
The  letters  of  Horace  Walpole  are  indeed  masterpieces  in  their  way;  they  are  the  en- 
tertaining and  lively  registers  of  the  gay  and  witty  who  have  lung  fluttered  and  flirted 
over  the  fashionable  stage,  till  pushed  ofl*by  a  new  race  of  persifieun.  Their  variety, 
as  well  as  their  peculiar  and  lively  diction,  renders  them  very  entertaining.  We 
shall  look  in  vain  to  history  for  such  traits  of  character  as  those  which  Horace 
Walpole  records  of  stout  old  Balmerino,  when  under  sentence  of  death.  We  quote 
from  Mr.  Bentley's  general  edition  of  Walpole's  Letters,  a  collection  into  one  view 
and  regular  ort'^r  of  that  vast  correspondence,  which,  besides  its  unrivalled  beauty 
and  brilliancy,  ..as  the  more  important  merit  of  being  the  liveliest  picture  of  man- 
ners, and  the  be-t  epitome  of  political  history  that  not  only  this,  but  any  county  po»- 
sesses." — Quarterly  Review. 

"  Walpole's  Letters  are  full  of  wit,  pleasantry,  and  information,  and  written  with 
singular  neatness  and  sprightliness.    Letters  are  certainly  the  honestest  records  of 

f;reat  minds  that  we  can  become  acquainted  with;  and  we  like  them  the  more,  for 
etting  us  into  the  follies  and  treacheries  of  high  life,  the  secrets  of  the  gay  and 
the  learned  world,  and  the  mysteries  of  author^Lp.  We  are  ushered,  as  it  were, 
behind  the  scenes  of  life,  and  see  gay  ladies  and  learned  men,  the  wise,  the  witty, 
and  the  ambitious,  in  all  the  nakedness,  or  undress  at  least,  of  their  spirits.  Wal- 
pole is  equally  sprightly  and  facetious,  whether  he  describes  a  king's  death  and  fune- 
ral, or  a  quirk  of  Qeorge  Selwyn;  and  is  nearly  as  amusing  when  he  recounts  the 
follies  and  the  fashions  of  the  day  as  when  he  solemnizes  into  the  sentimental."-* 
Edinburgh  Review. 

"  One  of  the  most  useful  and  important  publications  that  has  issued  from  the  press 
for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century.  It  is  illustrated  with  notes,  drawn  up  with  con- 
summate tact,  and  is,  moreover,  embellished  with  numerous  portraits  of  many  of  the 
most  celebrated  wits,  statesmen,  and  beauties  of  the  last  century.  Such  a  work,  so 
enriched  with  all  that  is  necessary  to  render  it  complete,  is  one  of  the  most  valuable 
that  any  lover  of  sterling  English  literature  can  possess." — Sun. 

"Asa  book  of  reference,  this  edition  of  Walpole's  Letters  must  henceforth  take  its 
place  among  the  memoirs  and  histories  of  the  time.  As  a  book  of  gossip,  it  is  per- 
haps the  completest  work  of  the  kind  in  the  English  language." — The  THmes. 

"  One  of  the  very  best  works  of  its  class,  if  not  uni(}ue,  in  the  English  language;  a 
work  full  of  information,  full  of  anecdote,  and  full  ot  amusement;  equally  fit  for  the 
library  of  the  scholar,  the  dilettante,  the  artist,  the  statesman,  and  the  general 
reader." — Literary  Oazette. 

"  Walpole's  Letters  are  unequalled  in  our  language;  delightful  in  themselves,  and 
a  most  amusing  and  instructive  commentary  on  the  history  of  parties,  and  of  the 
country,  from  1T35  to  1797.  This  edition  contains  not  only  all  the  letters  that  have 
been  published,  but  several  hundred  more  which  have  hitherto  existed  only  in  manu- 
script, or  made  their  appearance  singly  and  incidentally  in  other  works;  the  whole  is 
arranged  in  chronological  order."— iWAcn<cM«i. 

,  '•  In  this  edition, besides  the  letters  to  Miss  Berry,  are  some  to  the  Hon.  H.  S.  Con- 
way, John  Chute,  Esq.,  many  to  Lady  SulTolk— his  brother-in-law,  Charles  Churchill 
— Captain  Jephson — the  Earl  of  Buchan— the  Earl  of  Charlemont— Lord  Hailes — 
Gibbon— Mr.  Pitt  (afterwards  Earl  of  Chatham) — Qeorge  Hardinge— Mr.  Pember- 
ton,  and  other  distinguished  characters.  Explanatory  notes,  in  many  parts,  add  to 
the  value  of  the  present  collection,  which  now  first  published,  enjoys  two  signal 
advantages  over  all  its  predecessors.  It  is  the  only  complete  edition  of  the  incom- 
parable letters  of  this  'prince  of  epistolary  writers,'  as  he  has  been  justly  called; 
and  the  letters  themselves  are  arranged  in  chronological  oxditr."— Dublin  Evening 
Mail. 

"  Horace  Walpole  never  disappoints  his  reader;  his  letters  are  invariably  preg-> 
nant  with  wit;  none  can  raconter  so  delightfully  as  he,  introduce  an  anecdote  with 
so  much  point,  or  paint  a  character  so  epig^ammatically,  and  so  well.  His  fame 
is  now  fixed  beyond  the  chance  of  accident,  and  will  remain  so  until  wit  becomes 
obsolete,  and  dulness  a  desideratum.  Those  who  have  never  yet  read  Horace 
Walpole's  letters — and  they  must  be  still  in  their  teens— have  much  ^joyment 
before  them;  those  who  are  familiar  with  his  style,  including  all  who  deserve  to 
read,  will  hero  renew  the  pleasure  they  have  so  often  experienced." — Morning 
Herald. 


THE    SPEECHES 


or 

HENRY  LORD  BROUGHAM, 

UPON  QUESTIONS  RELATING  TO  PUBLIC  RIGHTS,  DUTIES, 

AND  INTERESTS, 
WITH  HISTORICAL  INTRODUCTIONS. 

In  two  handsome  volumes,  bound  in  embossed  cloth,  or  law  sheep. 
CoMTENTs.— Military  Flogging— aueen  Caroline— Libel  on  the  Durham  Clergy- 
Dissertation  on  the  Law  of  Libel— Commerce  and  Manufactures— Agricultural 
and  Manufacturing  Distress — Army  Estimates— Holy  Alliance— Slavery— Law 
Reform— Parliamentary  Reform— Education— Poor  Laws— Scotch  Parliamentary 
and  Burgh  Reform— Scotch  Marriage  and  Divorce  Bill— Establishment  of  the 
Liverpool  ^Mechanics'  Institute— Speech  on  Neutral  Rights— Affairs  of  Ireland- 
Speech  at  the  Grey  Festival— Change  of  Ministry  in  1834— Business  of  Parlia- 
ment—Maltreatment of  the  North  American  Colonies— Speech  on  the  Civil  List 
— Privilege  of  Parliament. 

•'  The  period  embraced  by  these  two  volumes  extends  over  a  space  of  thirty  years, 
from  1810  to  1840,  a  most  exciting  period,  during  all  of  which  Mr.  Brougham,  or 
Lord  Brougham,  played  a  most  distinguished  part)  and  upon  the  character  and  events 
of  which  he  excited  no  mean  influence. 

The  two  volumes  in  which  the  Philadelphia  publishers  have  put  forth  these 
speeches,  are  large  and  handsome.  The  speeches  themselves  all  treating  o  "great  pub- 
lic questions  and  interests,  survive  and  will  live  long  and  far  beyond  the  occasions  that 
called  them  forth;  Wuile  in  the  historical  introductions  to  each,  explanatory  of  the  time 
and  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  made,  and  tracing  occasional  sketches  of  con> 
temporaneous  characters,  such  light  is  thrown  upon  the  whole  subject,  as  to  enabl<> 
even  uninstructed  readers  to  enter  understandingly  into  the  merits  of  each  case.'' — 
New  York  American. 

"  In  brief,  the  biographical  ligaments  which  bind  together  the  snbjects  so  ably  han- 
dled in  these  volumes,  impart  compactness,  strength,  and  beauty  to  the  whole,  and 
the  head  of  a  family  who  introduces  such  works  to  his  sons  and  daughters,  secures 
to  them  an  inheritance  which  must  endure  to  them  for  the  whole  period  of  existence. 
As  to  the  author,  he  has  the  proud  assurance  that  the  benign  influence  of  his  labours 
will  endure  through  all  time,  and  to  a  lesser  or  greater  extent  over  every  nation  of 
he  earth." — National  Intelligencer, 

"  It  would  be  useless  for  us  to  do  anything  more  than  call  the  attention  of  statists 
and  civilians  to  such  a  work  as  this— containing,  as  it  does,  all  the  chief  forensic 
efibrts  of  one  of  the  mightiest  of  human  minds,  rich  with  great  and  varied  learning, 
and  clothed  with  the  drapery  of  an  "loquence  that  is  unsurpassed.  Here  are  col- 
lected all  the  speeches  ot  Englani'.'s  intellectual  giant  upon  the  great  subjects,  the  agi- 
tat'on  of  which  has  so  oAen  caused  the  British  isles  to  tremble  to  their  bases.  Who 
that  read  with  almost  breathless  interest  the  memorable  trial  of  Queen  Caroline, 
twenty-one  years  ago,  will  not  be  eager  to  revive  the  history  by  a  perusal  of 
Brougham's  mighty  speeches  in  behalf  of  that  singular  and  most  unfortunate  woman, 
as  revised  in  the  maturity  of  his  years  by  his  own  handl  Where  the  lawyer,  or  the 
studious  layman,  who  does  not  wish  to  possess  Brougham's  stupendous  speech  upon 
the  great  law-reform  in  England  which  he  commencedl  Where  the  politician  who 
desires  not  to  possess  the  speeches  of  this  great  champion  of  human  liberty,  on  the  great 
reform  questions,  in  the  discussion  and  adoption  of  which  he  bore  so  distinguished 
a  parti  Who  does  not  desire  to  possess  all  the  speeches  of  this  great  philanthro- 
pist on  the  subject  of  the  poor  laws,  the  education  of  the  people,  the  law  of  libel,  and 
other  great  topics  of  universal  concernmenf?  Well,  in  tne  two  large  volume  before 
us,  all  these  proud  efforts  of  human  learning,  genius,  and  intellect,  are  em.  idled — 
each  speech  being  preceded  by  a  historical  introduction  of  the  occasion  and  circum- 
stance ^  under  which  it  was  delivered.  No  FJnglish  library  will  be  complete  without 
these  volumes." — New  York  Commercial, 

"  These  volumes  contain  a  mine  of  literary  and  political  wealth  strongly  charac- 
teristic, both  in  manner  and  matter,  of  this  great  and  original  genius.  The  inde- 
pendence, the  vigour,  the  manliness  of  thought,  which  is  here  displayed,  and  the 
•tores  of  wisdom  and  learning  with  which  the  volumes  abound,  cannot  fail  to  secure 


I'l  1 


1^ 


.!    '      I 


i:  : 


for  their  tllastrions  aathor  a  more  AilI  appreciation  than  he  has,  In  this  conntrjr, 
especially  enjoyed.  Untrammelled  by  the  shaekles  of  custom,  or  prejudice,  he  here 
rises  proudly  above  old  beaten  tracks,  and  with  a  sublimity  of  moral  courage  ehal« 
lenging  the  warmest  admiration,  he  strikes  into  new  paths,  ezpoaing  the  errors  oi 
those  who  have  preceded  him  in  untiring  and  unceasing  labours,  and  proclaiming 
high  and  noble  principles  of  substantial  reform  aid  melioration."— 3«i4i<0»t4M. 

'*  These  volumes  eznibit  the  power  and  proAmdity  of  his  genius  in  the  department 
of  Intellect  in  which  he  is  perhaps  greatest.  The  publishers  have  conferred  a  sub^ 
stantial  benefit  on  the  lovers  or  forensic  eloquence,  by  placing  before  them  these 
noble  illustrations.  Lord  Brougham's  allusions  to  our  government,  national  charac- 
ter, and  struggles  for  independence,  are  compliments  which  a  great  and  growing 
nation  cannot  despis*  when  ofiered  by  such  a  man.  In  fine,  this  is  a  book  whicb 
may  be  glanced  at  with  pleasure,  or  read  and  studied  for  deep  instruction  with 
which  it  is  fVaught.  As  models  of  oratorical  composition,  these  speeches  should 
form  the  text-book  of  the  aspirant  for  forensic  honours."— iVew  Orleans  B«*. 

THE 

ECCLESIASTICAL  AND  POLITICAL  HISTORY 

Of  THB 

POPES    OF    ROME, 

DURING  THE   SIXTEENTH  AND  SEVENTEENTH   CENTURIES^ 
Bt  LEOPOLD  RANKE, 

PROVEBSOR  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  BERLIN. 

Translated  from  the  Qerman  by  Sarah  Austin. 
In  9  vdumea. 

"  To  the  high  qualifications  of  profound  research,  caref^il  accuracy,  great  fhimess 
and  candour,  witn  a  constant  reference  to  the  genius  and  spirit  of  each  successive 
age,  common  to  the  historians  of  Germany,  Mr.  Ranke  ados  the  charm  of  a  singu- 
larly lucid,  terse  and  agreeable  style." — Qtuirterly  Review. 

"  It  is  hardly  necessary  for  us  to  say  that  this  is  an  excellent  book,  excellently 
translated.  The  original  work  of  Professor  Ranke  Is  known>nd  esteemed  wherever 
German  literature  is  studied;  and  has  been  found  interesting  even  in  a  most  inaccui 
rate  and  dishonest  French  version.  It  is,  indeed,  the  work  of  a  mind  fitted  both  for 
minute  researches  and  for  large  speculations.  It  is  written  also  in  an  admirable  spirit, 
equally  remote  from  levity  and  bigotry;  serious  and  earnest,  yet  tolerant  and  impar- 
dal.  It  is,  therefore,  with  the  greatest  pleasure  that  we  now  see  it  take  its  place 
among  the  English  classics.  Of  the  translation,  we  need  only  aay  that  it  is  such  as 
might  be  expected  from  the  skill,  the  taste,  and  the  scrupulous  integrity  of  the  accom- 

Elish'ed  lady,  who,  as  an  interpreter  between  the  mind  of  Gkrmany  and  the  mind  of 
keat  Britain,  has  already  deserved  so  well  of  both  covoitiies."— Edinburgh  Review. 


LIVES  OF 

BXHEZNBNT  XiZTBRAR7  AND  SOZBNTIO 
MEN  OF  XTAL7. 

BY  MRS.  SHELLY,  SIR  DAVID  BREWSTER,  JAMES 
MONTGOMERY,  AND  OTHERS. 

CONTAINING 

DANTE,  GALILEO,  PETRARCH,  TA8SO,  BOCCACCIO,  VITTORIA  CO- 
LONNA,  LORENZO  DE  MEDICI,  TA880NI,  ARIOSTO,  MARINI,  MACHIA- 
YELLI,  &e.  &e. 

In  2  volumest  12mo, 

"  These  volumes  contain  biographical  notices,  more  or  less  complete,  of  twenty- 
two  of  those  names,  many  of  which  not  only  constitute  the  glory  of  Italy,  but  have 
stamped  the  impress  of  their  genius  ppon  all  succeeding  generations  in  every  civil* 


'    ^ii:    \ 


Ised  conntry.  The  Lives  commence  with  thai  of  Dante,  and  end  with  Ugo  Foscolo, 
two  per«ooi,  who,  in  the  character  of  thetr  minds  and  tune  of  their  feelings  and  sen- 
timenia,  lecm  to  lu,  though  living  so  many  centuries  apart,  to  have  borne  a  remark- 
able relation  to  one  another. 

••The  subjects  which  thtae  volumes  embrace,  are  too  ample  for  discussion  within 
the  limits  of  a  daily  journal— all  that  we  can  say  is,  that  we  have  read  ihem  with 
great  Mtisthction  and  constant  instruction.  In  general,  the  lives  are  treated  with 
aumcient  detail  as  to  facts  and  dates,  with  an  enlarged  philosophical  spirit,  with 
aound  and  disAiminating  criticism."— JV.  V.  Amrisan. 


rm  CRITIGAL  AND  MISCELLANEOUS  WRITINGS  OF 

SIR  EDWARD  LYTTON  BULWER. 

AirraOR  Of  "PBLBAH,**  •'THB  DHOWNED,"  dlCO. 

« 

In  2  voh.  l2mo. 

••These  volumes  are  the  miscellaneous  writings  of  that  great  author— great  in  his 
genius,  great  in  his  attainments,  and  but  for  an  unhappy  obliquity  in  certain  of  his 
works  of  fiction,  great  in  all  his  writings.  But  in  these  essays,  we  have  not  those 
objectionable  pictures  which  we  may  censure  in  his  novels.  We  may  differ  from 
the  distingnisned  author  in  some  of  nis  opinions  of  men,  and  things,  and  morals,  but 
u  a  whole,  his  miscellaneous  writings  must  command  the  applause  of  the  critic, 
white  they  rivet  the  attention  of  every  class  of  readers. 

••  It  is  refreshing  to  sit  down  and,  for  an  hour,  to  hold  converse  with  such  a  spirit  as 
Balwer's;  to  sit  in  the  light  of  his  genius,  lo  feel  its  warmth,  and  to  own  a  sympathy 
with  his  views.  We  forget  what  we  have  to  condemn  in  his  novels,  in  the  amount 
which  we  have  to  approve  in  his  essays."— IT.  S.  Gazette, 


THE  CRITICAL  AND  MISCELLANEOUS  WRITINGS  OF 

HENRY  LORD  BROUGHAM. 

TO  WHICH  IS  nUVSKP, 

A   SKETCH  OF   HIS  CHARACTER, 
/n  %  royal  12mo.  vohtmet. 

GoMTiim.— Qeorge  the  Fourth  and  Queen  Caroline— Diary  of  the  times  of  George 
the  Fourth.  The  Clneen's  letter  to  the  King.  Political  characters— Remarks  on 
an  article  in  the  Edinbiprgh  Review,  dec.  Ac.  by  Sir  Herbert  Taylor.  Public 
Charaetersr-Correspondence  of  William  Pitt,  liord  Chatham.  Conffress  of  Ve- 
r<ma— Chateaubriand  and  Talleyn.«d.  Public  Characters— Biographical  Trea- 
spiT  containingn  otices  of  the  lives  of  eminent  penons,  &c.  GeorKe  th«  Third 
andtheCatholie  Question— Letiurs  from  his  late  Majesty  to  the  late  LordKenyon 
on  the  Coronation  Oath,  Ae.  &c.  Discourse  on  the  Objects.  Advantages,  and  Plea- 
sures of  Science,  published  under  the  superintendence  of  the  Society  for  the  Diffu- 
sion of  Usefbl  Kjnowledge.  Historical  note  on  the  discovery  of  the  Theory  of  tiie 
Composition  of  Water,  published  as  an  appendix  to  a  memoir  of  James  Watt. 
•  Review  of  "Black's  Lectpres  pn  the  Elements  of  Chemistry,"  from  the  Edinbnrgb 
Review  of  October,  l(M.  London  University  and  King's  College— Seeond  State- 
ment by  th^  Council  of  the  University  of  London,  explanatory  of  the  Plan  of  In- 
struction. Junius  Identi^ed- The  identity  of  Junius  with  a  distinguished  living 
eharatiter  estdbllshed.  A  supplement  to  Junius  Identified- Consisting  of  flic-aimi- 
les  of  hand-writing  and  other  illustrations.  Neutral  duestion,  from  the  Edinburgh 
Review  of  Oetobe?,  1807.  Revolution  in  France— Reflexions  sur  la  France;  vlcea 
de  son  Gtouvemement;  causes  du  M6conteutement  des  Francaise  sous  te  Ministtoe 
de  Polignae,  dte.— par  M.  St.  Maurice. 

1* 


1 

'    :     ' 

1 

' 

■ 

1 

THE  FOURTH  EDITION  Of 

DUNGLISON'S  HUMAN  PHTSIOLOGT. 

ILLUSTBATBD  MT  HfOBATIirOS. 

WITH  NUMEROUS  ADDITIONS  AND  MODIHOATIONSL 

/n  3  volumut  9vo,  ^ 

"  ProfeMlonil  readers  and  stadenu  are  fully  aware  of  the  ralne  of  thli  work}  bat 
that  U  not  the  case  with  persons  unconnected  with  the  profeuion  of  medicine.  To 
such  persons  it  maj  be  sufficient  to  say,  that  Dunglison's  Physiology  is  so  clearly  writ- 
ten, the  various  objects  so  well  illustrated  bv  cnf  raTinis}  in  short,  the  work  is  so  com-* 
plete  in  all  its  parts  and  as  a  whole,  that  tne  knowleoge  contained  in  it  is  aTallable 
to  all  classes,  clerical,  legal,  medical,  or  commercial.  And  why  should  any  man 
who  is  liberally  educated,  remain  ignorant  upon  a  suUeet  of  so  much  interesti  What 
library  can  be  considered  complete,  wanting  a  gooa  book  of  reference  or  study  on 
thd  subject  of  Physiologyl  The  book  under  notice  is  so  arranged  that  it  might  not 
be  improperly  designated  an  '  Encyclopedia  of  Physiology;'  and  examination  will 
satisfy  the  most  doubting,  that  it  is  the  most  complete  work  on  Physiology  at  pre- 
sent before  the  public."— iVa<.  ChixetU. 

"  On  comparing  this  fourth,  with  the  third  edition  of  the  work  named  abore,  it 
will  be  found  that  a  great  deal  of  labour  has  been  successfully  bestowed  in  impror- 
ing  the  book.  It  is  only  by  comparison  that  the  superiority  or  the  fourth  edition  will 
be  recognized;  for  the  third  edition  is  so  full  and  clear  upon  all  the  rarioos  points 
of  the  subject,  that  there  seemed  to  be  nothing  to  be  added.  Yet  we  And  the  learned 
author  offers  us  additional  facts  and  opinions,  directly  or  indirectly  drawn  from  the 
scientific  springs  of  Oermany,  France,  and  England,  which  are  respectively  placed 
under  their  appropriate  heads  in  the  work,  instead  of  being  added  in  an  appendix 
with  letters  or  reference  at  the  bottom  of  the  pages— the  usual  practice  of  indolent 
writers."— C^.  S.  GaxttU. 


A  NEW  EDITION  OF 

ARNOTT'S  ELEMENTS  OF  PHYSICS; 

OR,  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHY, 

GENERAL  AND  MEDICAL. 
WRITTBN  rOR  tmiTIMAL  VMM,  IN  PLAIN  AND  NON-TKOHNIOAL  UMQVABM, 

Qmplete  in  one  volume. 

Reriwd  and  Corrected  from  the  lait  English  Edition, 

WITH  ADDITIONS  BY  ISAAC  HAYS,  M.D. 

From  the  National  Gazette. 

"  This  most  excellent  text-book,  which  is  written  without  the  use  of  technical  terms, 
may  on  the  appearance  of  a  new  edition  be  again  commended  to  general  notice.  The 
various  treatises  formeily  issued  separatelv,  are  now  comprised  by  the  able  Ameri- 
can editor  in  one  volume.    It  is  thus  briefly  noticed  in  Waldie's  Librarv: 

" '  Amott's  Physics  has  long  been  a  favourite  text-book  of  natural  philosophy  in 
oar  colleges  and  higher  schools.  Its  plain,  popular  style,  the  ikmiliarlty  of  the  illus- 
trations, the  strictly  practical  character  dtfthe  instructioa  it  contains,  and  its  scien- 
tific accuracv,  place  it  in  the  first  rank  of  works  in  this  department  of  knowledge. 
The  edition  before  us  is  just  published:  it  contains  the  results  of  all  the  recent  inaui- 
ries  in  the  various  departments  of  physics,  and  the  whole  work,  hitherto  pnblisned 
in  several  volumes,  out  now  comprised  in  one,  becomes  the  cheapest  and  best 
work  extant  on  the  subject.  It  will  soon  be  exclunively  used  in  colleges  and  high 
schools.' 

"  This  treatise  is  superior  to  any  similar  work  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  for 
general  use.  It  is  written  in  a  plain  and  familiar  style,  without  the  use  of  technical 
terms  and  descriptive  words  derived  from  dead  langnases,  and  not  to  be  understood 
but  by  scholars  and  men  who  have  made  lanraages  and  sciences  th«  study  of  years. 
We  know  of  no  work,  unless  it  be  BigelowY  Teeknslogi/,  that  can  bear  any  com- 
parison with  this  as  an  entertaining  and  instmctive  book  for  families  or  schools."— 
Button  Coturitr. 


A  THIRD  EDITION  OP 
THE  BIOGRAPHY  AND  POETICAL  REMAINS 

or  THB  LATB 

MARGARET  MILLER  DAVIDSON. 

BY  WASHINGTON  IRVING. 
Ai  orvB  volwne,  handtomeljf  bound  in  tmbowued  cloth, 
"  The  volume  here  presentedis  Tf^rv  altraclive.    The  Biography  by  Irving  de* 


rives  a  great  interest  from  the  affectiouale  dignity  with  which  u  muiher,  nut  unwor- 
thy  of  such  dauchters,  seems  to  have  preserved  the  record  of  the  development  of  the 
powers  of  mind,  and  graces  of  character,  of  her  gifted  and  fated  child;  while  the 
prose  and  poetical  remains  attest  the  taste  and  talent  which  a  premature  gravv 
anatched  from  the  world."— Ar#ie  York  Am'i  uan, 

"  The  particulars  of  Margaret's  career,  which  have  been  obtained  by  Mr.  Irving 
principally  flrom  her  mother  and  family,  and  are  recorded  in  his  UHual  fascinating 
style,  will  be  found  of  intense  and  melancholy  interest;  her  poetical  eflbrts,  from  the 
•ge  uf  eight  years  till  her  early  death  at  fifteen,  display  an  activity  of  intellect  truly 
remarkable,  and  which  will  too  readily  account  for  her  premature  decease.  This 
work  cannot  fail  to  And  high  favour  with  the  public."— Pen/uy^vaiitan. 

THE  POETICAL  REMAINS 

OF  THB  LATB 

LUCRETIA  M.  DAVIDSON. 

COLLECTED  AND  ARRANGED  BY  HER  MOTHER. 

WITH  A  BIOGRAPHY  BY  MISS  SEDGWICK. 

In  one  handiome  volume^  to  mateh  Irving' m  Biography  of  Margaret. 

"  We  have  read  the  contents  of  these  volumes  with  serene  and  sober  delight. 
They  possess  a  charm  which,  to  us,  is  irresistible,  and  which  forbids  the  intrusion  of 
any  otner  feeling  than  one  of  respect,  of  wonder,  or  of  love.  The  pieces  in  the 
volume  now  before  us,  (which  is  printed  and  bound  in  a  style  to  correspond  with  the 
Remains  of  Margaret,)  are  mostly  tinctured  with  the  hue  of  melancholv;  there  are 
few  of  them  that  do  not  convey  a  moral;  and  many  appear  to  have  been  written 
under  the  influence  of  serious  impressions  and  deep  devotional  {teliag."m^Botton 
Courier. 

"  In  disposition,  Miss  Davidson  was  a  creature  of  surpassing  loveliness.  Her 
heart  was  tail  of  noble,  pure,  generous  and  holy  motives  and  aspirations.  Nothing 
can  be  more  touching  than  her  history.  It  is  a  lesson  which  may  improve  every 
reader.  To  the  young  it  is  an  example  which  might  aflect  the  most  callous  and 
mend  the  most  depraved — an  example  of  devotion  to  every  duty— of  resignation 
under  affliction,  even  to  the  approach  of  certain  death.  Miss  Sedgwick's  memoir  is 
worthy  or  the  subject.  It  is  written  with  taste  and  feeling,  and  throws  a  charm  over 
the  works  of  the  lamented  poetess."— iVa<.  GaztUe. 


THE  POETICAL  WORKS  O** 

RX^aiNAIiD    BBBBR, 

LATB  BISHOP  OP  CALCUTTA. 

Complete  in  one  handeome  volume,  bound  in  embossed  doth,  or  in  extra 

bindings,  with  gilt  edges. 

"  The  name  of  Bishop  Heber  is  dear  to  alfwho  love  to  see  intellectual  power  in 
connertiou  with  great  moral  worth.  The  present  collected  edition  of  his  poems  will 
QiiioulHedly  acquire  a  considerable  circulation  among  those  who  justly  hold  his 
name  in  veneration.  The  light  of  his  genius  was  not  of  that  kind  which  '  lured 
astray,'  but  it  was  in  truth  '  light  from  heaven.'  Many  of  his  smaller  pieces  are  ez« 
ceedingly  beautiful  and  touchuig. '— TYmei. 

*'  Who  among  the  lovers  of  nure,  heaven!;  poetry,  has  not  read  with  delight  many 
of  the  exquisite  productions  or  this  eminent'  and  highly-gifted  prelatel  I  can  con> 
ceive  of  no  higher  earthly  gratification  than  that  enjoyed,  and  unexpectedly  too,  by 
the  fhther  of  Heber,  who  was  one  of  an  audience  than  which  none  was  ever  more 
learned  or  distinguished,  before  which  the  son,  at  the  early  a^e  of  nineteen  years. 

£  renounced,  with  unsurpassed  grace  and  effect,  his  masterly  prize  poem, '  Palestine,' 
iclnded,  of  course,  in  this  collection.    It  is  said  that  the  father  was  carried  UiHing 
Aom  the  hall."— JMMtiMtaii. 


/  .. 


\f 


1 


1 


S' 


Pill  I' I 'i 


h 


,» 


'■    1 


I 


ii 


THE  WORKS  OP  MRS.  HEMANS, 

INCLUDING  A  MEMOIR  BY  HSR  8I8TER. 

AMr  AN  E88AT  ON  HBR  OKNIVS,  BY  MHS.  8IOOVRNBT. 

A  new  and  beautiful  edition,  printed  on  fine  paper,  with  a  portrait  of  the  author* 
ess,  handsomely  bound  in  embossed  cloth,  or  in  calf  and  morocco,  extra,  with  ^t 
edges,  forming  one  of  the  mo8t  beautiful  presents  of  the  season. 

In  7  vols,  royal  13mo. 

This  is  the  only  complete  edition  of  the  works  of  Mrs.  Heroans,  and  contains 
many  new  poems,  together  with  other  matter  not  embraced  in  any  otiter  edition  oi 
her  works. 


KBBIiB'S  GHRI8TZAN  ITBAR. 

THOUGHTS  IN  VERSE, 

FOR  SVNDATS  AMD  BOLT  DATS  THROnOHOUT  THE  TEAR. 

BY  THE  REV.  JOHN  KEBLE, 

FROFBBSOR  OF  POETRY  IN  THE  imiVERfllTY  OF  OXFORD. 

**  In  quietness  and  eoniidence  shall  Iw  your  atrengtii."— Iiauh,  xxx.  15. 

The  Third  Edltton, 

With  a  farther  revision;  and  an  Introduction  by  the  Rev.  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop 
of  New  Jersey.    In  one  neat  volume. 
"  These  verses  are  singularly  beautiM  in  conception  and  composition, and  breathe 
the  purest  poetic  taste  j  and  the  most  sincere  and  fervent  spirit  of  piety, "-^  Gazette, 

THE 

LIFE  AND  LITERARY  REMAINS  OF  L.  E.  L* 

(miss  lanoon.) 
LAMAN    BJ.ANGHARO. 
In  2  handsome  12mo.  Volumes. 


BY 


A  MEMOIR  OF  THE 

LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  MRS.  HEMANS, 

BY  HER  r'STER,  MRS.  HUGHES. 
In  one  VohmUt  l2mo. 


SKETCHES  O^  CONSPICUOUS 

LIVING  CHARAOTBRS  OF  FRANCO. 

Containing  Thiers,  Chateaubriand,  Lafitte,  Guisot,  La  Martina,  George  Sand,  (Madanne 
Dudevant,)  Odillon  Barrot,  The  Dake  de  Broglie,Soult,  Berryer,  De  La  Mennais,  Victor 
Hugo,  Dupin,  Beranirer,  Arago. 

TRANSLATED  BY  R.  M.  WALSHt 

WITJI  A  PORTRAIT  OF  THIERS* 

In  one  Volume^ 


STORIES  FOR  VERY  rODNO  CHILDREN, 

JLLUSTRATSD  BT  NUMBROUS  WOOD  CUTS,  CONTAININO 

WINTER,  SPRING,  SUMMER  AND  AUTUMN, 
BY  MRS.  MASCET, 

AUTHOR  OF  OOMTKRSATlOIfS  ON  OHBMIBTRT. 

Ai  F(mr  Parts,  itetMif  done  np  in  Printed  Covers,  or  all  bovnd  in  one  Volmme,  tmbotted 
eUfth:  forming  an  interesting  Holiday  Present  for  Children, 
**  These  four  little  quartos  are  very  appropriate  gifts  for  young  children,  and  now, 
too,  fs  tiM  season  for  making  sach  ginsi  their  authoress  is  qtiite  popnlar  with  the 
young,  and  these  contain  manv  engravings  to  add  to  the  interest.  The  type  is  clear 
and  plain,  and  the  diildren  oi  the  family  will  take  much  pleasqxe  la  speUing  otit 
the  stories.— £«niin^  Oaxette. 


0 

WASHINGTON  ZRVING'S  WORKS. 

A  NEW  AND  BEAUTIFUL  EDITION 

'  OTTHC 

WORKS  OF  WASHINGTON  IRVING, 

IHBRACINO 

"  THE  EXETCH  BOOK,"   "  KNICKERBOCKER'S  NEW  YORK," 

"  BRACEBRIDGE  HALL,"    "  TALES  OF  A  TRAVELLER," 

"  THE  CONQUEST  OF  ORANADA,"   "  THE  ALHAMBRA." 

In  Two  Royal  Octavo  Volumes,  with  a  Portrait  of  the  Author. 

Each  of  the  Works  embraced  in  this  Edition  may  be  had  separately,  in 

two  volumes  l2mo. 


THIS  ROCKV  MOUNTAINS: 

OR  SCENES,   INCIDENTS,   AND  ADVENTURES   IN  THE  FAR  WEST. 

With  two  large  Maps.     In  two  Volumes. 


ASTORIA; 

OR  ANECDOTES  OF  AN  ENTERPRISE  BEYOND  THE  ROCKY  MOUNTAINS. 

In  Two  Volumes. 


A  HISTORY  OP  THE  LIFE  AND  VOYAGES  OF 

CHRISTOPHER   COLUMBUS^ 

Revised  and  corrected  by  the  Author.    In  Two  Vols.  Octavo. 


THE  CRA70N  MISCELLANY. 

CONTAININa 

"  A  TOUR  ON  THE  PRAIRIES,"    **  ABB0T8F0RD  AND  NEWSTEAD  ABBEY," 

"  LEGENDS  OF  THE  CONQUEST  OF  SPAIN." 

In  Three  Volumes,  12mo. 


THIS  BEAUTIES  OF  mTASHZirOTON  ZRVIirO. 

A  small  volume  for  'the  pocket,  neatly  done  up  in  extra  cloth. 


COOPER'S  NAVAL  HISTORY 

OF 

THE  UNITED  STATES. 

In  tteo  hand$atne  volumet,  bound  in  embossed  cloth. 
A  new  edition,  revised  and  corrected,  with  an  index  to  the  volumes. 

"  The  History  of  the  Navy  of  the  United  States  from  the  earliest  period  of  its 
existence,  in  the  dawn  of  the  Revoiation,  through  all  its  discouragements,  reverses, 
trials,  and  glory,  was  a  task  worthy  of  the  author,  who  had  established  a  reputation, 
as  a  describer  of  nautical  events,  superior  to  that  of  any  other  living  writer.  The 
task  has  been  so  performed  as  to  leave  nothing  to  desire.  No  work  of  higher  interest 
has  been  published  in  the  United  States  for  many  years.  The  theme  is  one  which 
Mr.  Cooper  seems  to  treat  con  amore,  and  for  which  his  early  life  and  education 
fitted  him,  above  all  other  men.  If  we  are  not  mistaken,  the  publication  of  this 
book  is  calculated  to  heighten  the  already  exaled  estimate  in  which  the  Nav)r  is 
held,  and  to  render  it  still  more,  if  possible,  a  favourite  with  the  nation.  Whilst 
Mr.  Cooper  has,  at  all  times,  given  full  credit  to  the  officers  and  crews  of  the  vessels 
whose  victories,  during  the  late  war,  shed  so  much  renown  upon  our  arms,  he  has 
not  been  guilty  of  the  rad  taste,  which  a  writer  of  less  discrimination  would  scarcely 
have  avoided,  of  indulging  a  vainglorious  spirit  and  a  disparaging  tone  in  reference 
to  our  great  rival  upon  the  ocean.  The  glories  of  American  victories  are  tally 
portrayed,  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  care  is  taken,  in  every  case,  to  exhibit  a  fair 
and  impartial  estimate  of  the  strength  ahd  appointments  of  antagonists'  vessels  or 
fleets.  In  this  way  the  work  acquires  the  credit  due  to  a  grave  and  impartial  his* 
tory.*'-~BaUimore  ChronicU. 


)l 


m 


S  Vi 


\  r 


1': 

i    V    '■ 
1     'I 

):!■: 


I 


I 


1 


r\\i 


m 


1  ^ 

■1    '    ! 

'^  ,  '■ 

II 

1 

1  '^ 

10 
MB.  OOOPBR'S  NBW  ITOITBL. 

THE  DEERSLAYER; 

OH, 

THE    FIRST   WAR   PATH. 

A  TALB  OF  THE  BARtY  DAYS  OF  NATTY  BUMPO  AND  CHINOACHGOOK. 

Bjf  the  author  of  "2%*  LaU  of  the  MMeant,**  **The  Prairie^'  ^*Pioneen,''  ^e.  4re. 

In  2  vohtmest  12mo. 

"Written  in  Mr.  Cooper's  best  style;  the  style  which  Won  him  his  repute,  and  by 
ivhich  he  will  live.  'Deerslayer'  is  no  other  than  our  famous  Hawkeye,  immortal 
Leatherstocking,  now  the  hero  of  Mr.  Cooper's  fire  best  tales." — Examiner. 

"  All  who  perused  with  so  much  delight  the  earliest  and  best  novels  of  Mr.  Cooper, 
will  at  once  and  themselves  again  led  on,  in  this  new  romance,  by  the  same  spirit  of 
bi'dent  excitement  felt  while  reading  those  productions." — Globe. 

"  Mr.  Cooper's  earlier  romances  created  so  pleasant  a  sensation  among  novel 
readers  in  general,  that  they  will  hear  he  has  returned  to  the  style  of  his  efforts  with 
no  little  gratification.  The  '  Deerslayer'  is  more  worthy  of  his  high  reputation  than 
any  of  his  latter  productions;  it  is  indeed  a  stirring  tale  of  the  early  history  of  Ame- 
rica— full  of  startling  incidents  and  thrilling  descriptions — the  characters,  though 
few  in  number,  are  most  ably  drawn,  and  the  locality  (for  there  is  no  change  of 
scene)  admirably  depicted.  The  heroine  is  quite  a  portrait;  and  '  Deerslayer  one 
of  the  fiue  borderers  peculiar  to  Mr.  Cooper's  tales."— JLotu^.  Lit.  Oaz. 


imROBDBS  OF  OASTZLE. 

A  ROMANCE  OF  THE  DAYS  OF  COLUMBUS. 

BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  <*  PILOT,"  &C.  &C. 

In  T\oo  volumes. 


A  FINE  EDITION  OF  THE 

LEATRBRSTOCXnCG  TALES! 

BXBRACINO 

Tke  Deerslayer,  The  Pathfinder,  The  Pioneers,  The  Prairie^  and  The  Last  of  the 

Mohicans. 

la  Five  Volumes,  12nio.  bound  in  embossed  cloth. 

"  Cooper  has  now  followed  the  borderer  through  every  stage  of  his  existence,  from 
the  young  scout  to  the  trapper  on  the  western  prairies.  The  five  tales  may  be  con- 
sidered as  forming  one  continued  story,  in  which  the  heroes  and  heroines  of  the 
several  plots  are  accessaries  only  to  the  history  of  '  Hawkeye,'  around  whom  the 
chief  interest,  after  all,  revolves.  The  idea  of  carrying  one  character  through  seve- 
ral tales  is  one  successfully  achieved  by  Shakspeare,  and  we  may  also  say,  success- 
fully imitated  by  Cooper."— Sa<.  Eve.  Post. 


A  NEW  EDITION,  COMPLETE,  OF 

COOPER'S  NOVELS  AND  TALES. 

FORTY  VOLUMES  BOUND  IN  TWENTY. 

CONTAINING 
The  Spy^  Pioneert,  Pilot,  Lionel  Lincoln,  The  Prairie,  Water  Witch,  Wiih-ton- 
foim,  Last  of  The  Mohiearu,  Red  Rover,  JBravo,  JVavelling  Bachelor,  Heidenmauerf 
Beadsman,  Mbnnikins,  Precaution,  Homeward  Bound,  Ihme  a»  Ihund,  Pathfinder, 
fSeretdea  (f  Caatile,  and  The  Deerslayer, 

"  Also,  the  Second  Series  of  his  Novels  and  Tales,  containing  the  last  fourteen 
volumes  of  his  books,  bound  in  a  style  to  match  the  first  series  in  twenty-six 
volumes. 

The  whole  of  the  Novels  by  Mr.  Cooper  are  now  for  the  first  time  brought  within 
the  reach  of  the  public  in  a  uniform  style,  and  at  so  low  a  price  as  to  claim  for  them 
a  ycry  general  circulation." 


|i  !' 


n 


re  of 
one 


IS. 


STANLEY    THORN. 

BY  HENRY  COCKTON, 

AUTHOR  OF  "VALENTINE  VOX,  THE  VENTRltOQUIST,"  SlC. 

WITH  NUMEROUS  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

DESIGNED  BT  CRUIKSHAMK^  LEECH,  &C.  AND  ENGRAVED  BY  TEA6ER. 

In  ont  royal  octavo  volume^  bound  in  emboased  cloth. 

"  Who  has  not  roared  with  laughter  over  the  admirably  recorded  and  most  hamor< 
ously  conceived  adventures  of  "  Valentinel"  Many  of  our  contemporaries  have 
teemed  with  his  rare  "  tricks"  and  side-splilting  encounters.  We  need  only  say  that 
Slanlfiy  is  worthy  of  the  author  of  Valentine.  Henry  Cockton  is  destined  to  fill  a 
high  station  as  a  writer  of  pleasant  fiction,  and  he  has  already  proved  himself,  with 
perhaps  a  single  exception,  the  most  successful  rival  of  the  great  and  inimitable 
Box.  —Saturday  Courier. 

"  In  making  a  withering  expose  of  the  nefarious  and  plundering  schemes  by  which 
young  men  of  fortune  are  surrounded  and  entrapped,  it  is  extraordinary  with  what 
consummate  art  the  author  of  the  new  story  of  Modern  Life, '  Stanley  Thorn,'  has 

Preserved  a  lofty  and  moral  tone  iiT  the  delineations  he  has  been  compelled  to  make, 
'he  effects  of  his  pictures  of  bacchanalian  revelries,  gaming-houses  atrijcities,  mas- 
Suerade  dissipations,  turf  villanies,  bribery  at  elections,  fraudulent  money-raising, 
ic,  leave  on  the  mind  of  the  reader  not  only  astonishments  that  such  things  should 
be,  but  a  hearty  abhorrence  of  them;  and  a  determination  to  make  the  disclosures 
available  as  beacons.  '  Stanley  Thorn'  will  probably  be  the  most  popular  work  of 
fiction  of  the  day. "~^Benlley's  Mixcellany. 

GUY    FAWKES; 

OR, 

THE    GUNPOWDER    TREASON. 

AN    HISTORICAL    ROMANCE. 
BY.  WILLIAM  HARRISON  AINSWORTH, 

ATTTHOR  057  "  THE  TOWER  OF  LONDON,"  "  JACK  8HEPPARD,"  &C. 

In  1  volume^  %vo.  with  Plates, 

"  We  look  upon  '  Guy  Pawkes'  as,  in  many  respcts,  the  author's  best  production. 
The  incidents  of  the  story,  and  the  situations  of  the  chief  actors  in  it,  are  such  as 
enable  a  writer  possessed  of  his  peculiar  powers,  to  turn  them  to  the  best  possible 
account.  Deeply  read  in  the  history  of  the  time,  versed  in  antiquarian  lore,  and 
familiar  with  aetails  and  localities,  he  adds  to  these  qualifications  a  quick  suscepti- 
bility of  the  nature  of  effect,  and  the  power  of  grouping  his  figures  so  as  to  bring 
them  at  once  into  immediate  action,— attributes  which  are  eminently  serviceable  in  a 
narrative  like  the  present.  In  his  happiest  efforts  we  ate  often  reminded  of  the 
free  ana  vigorous  pencil  of  the  Wouvermans.  In  seeking  a  romance  of  stirring 
character  and  intense  interest,  the  reader  will  assuredly  not  be  disappointed."*-- 
Morning  Herald. 


THZ  PORCBIiAXN  TOWSR; 

NINE  STORIES  OF  CHINA. 

COMPILED  FROM  ORIGINAL  SOURCES. 

BY-T.T.T." 

WITH  HtaiOROVS  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

In  one  volume. 

"  Full  of  all  sorts  of  fun,  wit,  humour,  and  pictorial  drollery  combined;  and  illus- 
trated as  it  is  with  true  c(mgenial  spirit,  by  Leech,  the  rising  artist  of  the  day,  we 
may  safely  recommend  it  to  till."— Globe. 

"Replete  with  atch  drollery,  and  illustrated  in  a  kindred  spirit  by  Leech.  A 
more  hnmorons  or  entertaining  little  volume  has  not  appeared  this  season."— iSwi. 

"  A  very  humorous  and  amusing  volume.  The  illustrations  are  exceedingly  co- 
mic."— M>rning  Herald. 


I 


h  f 


U'i 


It 


wmu  mw  umiuL 


BARNABY    RUDCE, 

WITH 

MjkU'i'Ajruju  xuLxnmuLTWom 

ENGRAVED  BY  YEAGER, 

TOaCTHBIl 
WITH  OVER  FIFTY  ILLVSTRATIONS  ON  WOOD. 

lu  one  handsome  royal  8vo.  volame. 


A  NEW  EDITION  OF 

B  OLD  0URI08IT7  SHOP. 

WITH    MANY    ADDITIONAL*  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Engraved  by  Veager,from  Derignaby  SUftom 

And  printed  on  eream-coloored  paper  to  match  the  other  works  of  "Bos.** 

TAm  tiitum  eontaint  upwardt  of  One  Hundred  Illuttratiotu, 


POSTHUMOUS  PAPERS  OF  THE  PICKWICK  CLUB. 

OLZVBR  TWIST-, 

THE   PARISH  BOY'S   PROGRESS, 

With  a  new  Preface. 


THE  LIFE  AND  ADVENTURES 

NICBOIiAs"nZCKIiBB7. 


SKETCHES 

ILLOBTRATITSOr 

WJSRTt-'DAY  JUFB  AVD  1IVJBI&7-DA7  PBOPZJL 

All  the  above  works  are  printed  on  fine  paper,  with  illustrations,  and  handsomely 
bound  in  embossed  cloth,  to  match. 

The  additional  illustrations  to  the  "  Old  Curiosity  Shop,"  engraved  by  Yeager, 
from  designs  by  Sibson,  may  be  had  separate,  neatly  done  up  in  a  printed  cover. 

Clieap  editions  of  these  works,  without  plates,  are  also  published  by  L.  &  6.,  and 
can  be  nad  of  all  booksellers. 


TALES  AND  SOUVENIRS  OF  A 

BBSIDBNOB   IN   BUROPB. 

BY  THE  LADY  OF  A  DISTINGVISHED  SENATOR  OF  VIRGINIA. 

In  one  kandaome  roytd  volume,  bound  in  extra  embossed  cloth, 

*'  The  authoress  of  this  very  agreeable  volume  is  said  to  be  the  accomplished  wife 
of  a  distinguished  Senator,  whose  residence  abroaS,  for  a  number  of  years,  in  a  high 
diplomatic  station,  afforded  opportunity  for  the  "  Souvenirs,"  which  are  now  grace- 
i\ally  presented  to  the  public,  and  which  will  place  the  fair  gleaner  by  the  side  of 
those  of  her  own  sex  in  this  country  who  have,  by  their  writings,  vindicated  their 
claims  to  a  high  rank  in  the  scale  of  genius  ana  practical  talent.  The  contents  of 
tihis  handsome  little  volume  are  Fragments  of  a  Journal,  a  Ballad,  and  Tales,  just 
Jn  sufficient  variety  to  give  evidence  of  much  diversity  of  talent,  with  very  consioer- 
able  power,  which  we  nope  to  see  employed  again  and  again  in  the  production  of 
Works  like  this,  which  will  long  be  an  ornament  to  the  polite  literature  of  our  conn- 
tty."—Madiionian. 


